THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION BIDKIN, TQ-PAITHAN Vs. NIRANJAN S/O SHRIPATRAO JADHAV, AGE28 YEARS, OCCU:BUSINESS, R/O CIDCO, AURANGABAD, N3, PLOT NO. 34, OPPOSITE TO HOTEL AMBASSADOR, AND ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-124
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 21,2017

The State Of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Bidkin, Tq-Paithan Appellant
VERSUS
Niranjan S/O Shripatrao Jadhav, Age28 Years, Occu:Business, R/O Cidco, Aurangabad, N3, Plot No. 34, Opposite To Hotel Ambassador, And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.SHINDE, J. - (1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 6th January, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 140 of 1999, thereby acquitting all the accused i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from the offences punishable under Sections 307, 186 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code").
(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: (A) Accused No. 1 is the owner of Niranjan Alloy Pvt. Ltd. situated at Bidkin, TqPaithan, Dist Aurangabad. Accused No. 2 to 4 are servants in the company of accused No.1. According to the prosecution, there had been theft of electricity from the said company and therefore Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short "M.S.E.B.") had installed a checkmeter opposite the company and in order to guard the checkmeter, they had appointed private security guards from Singh Security Agency, so also two M.S.E.B. workers were also deputed at the spot, at the same time one armed constable was also deputed to that spot. (B) On 31st January, 1998, complainant Dinesh Vairagade, who is Assistant Director, Vigilance Security, M.S.E.B. Department had visited the spot, opposite the company at about 11.00 hours to find out whether security agency persons and other staff were carrying on duties properly. (C) It is the case of prosecution that around 21.45 hours accused No. 1 Niranjan Jadhav came in a car while accused No.2 to 4 also came along with accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 Niranjan Jadhav questioned police constable Gaikwad, "if he had arms", and also threatened him that accused No.1 also possessed his arms. Thereafter accused No. 1 Niranjan Jadhav fired a bullet in the direction of the complainant Dinesh Vairagade. The said bullet passed near from head of complainant and had missed him. Accused No. 1 thereafter told other accused persons to take revolver and fill the bullet and return. At this juncture police constable Gaikwad told accused No. 1 that if he fired again, then police constable Gaikwad would also fire with his rifle. The accused persons thereafter went away. Accordingly, complainant Dinesh Vairagade went to police station Bidkin and gave his complaint and the same was registered as Crime No. 76 of 1998. (D) Thereafter Investigating Officer immediately came to the spot, recorded statement of witnesses and had drawn spot panchnama. The Investigating Officer arrested accused Nos.1 to 4. He also seized revolver and 25 cartridges. He had seized camera from the house of accused No.4 Shaikh Usman. So also he had taken search of accused No.1 Niranjan Jadhav. The seized revolver and cartridges were sent to ballistic expert and after receipt of the report, submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. The Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
(3.) A charge was framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad against all the accused persons, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.