DADU S/O KESHAV WAGHMARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-24
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Decided on May 09,2017

Dadu S/O Keshav Waghmare Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.S.SHINDE,J. - (1.) Heard the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the original accused.
(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2003 is filed by appellant/accused no.1, challenging the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 13th August, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C."). Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2003 is filed by the appellant/State seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to original accused no.1 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001 by the Sessions Jude, Kopargaon. Criminal Appeal No. 683 of 2003 is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 13th August, 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001, thereby acquitting the original accused nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 323 read with section 34 of the I.P.C.
(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :- (A) Complainant (PW1) Dinkar is residing at Korhale along with his family members and is working as a peon in Agricultural Department. Kusum is his wife, Santosh is his son, Ujwala, Kamal and Nirmala are the daughters of THE complainant. Nirmala is married and on 29th October, 2000 she had come to village Korhale for Diwali festival. The complainant owned and possessed the agricultural land at village Korhale. At the time of incident, there was pulses (moog math) standing in the land of the complainant. On the day of incident, the complainant returned from his duty at about 6 p.m., at that time his daughter Ujwala informed him that the cattle of accused Dadu Waghmare were grazing in the field of complainant, and when she asked Dadu about the same, he got annoyed and abused, threatened and assaulted her. (B) It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant thereafter went to the house of Dadu and asked about the said incident of assault. At that time, Dadu got annoyed and assaulted Nirmala by an axe on her head. When complainant tried to rescue Nirmala, accused Dadu assaulted him from back side on his head, and at that time accused Rakhma and son of Dadu assaulted the wife of complainant by stick on her head. Daughter Kusum was also assaulted by the accused on her head. Wife of accused Dadu also assaulted. All were injured and, therefore, they were taken to Pravara Hospital Loni by the son of complainant by Jeep. (C) It is the case of the prosecution that, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Jadhav, on the day of incident was on patrolling duty along with other police staff and at Babhaleshwar Outpost, he received telephonic message from PSO Rahata that incident of assault took place at village Korhale and four injured were admitted in the hospital. Immediately, after receipt of said information, he rushed to Pravara Hospital, Loni. He found complainant and others were admitted in the hospital in injured condition. Nirmala was serious, therefore after giving first aid, she was shifted to Nashik for further treatment. In the hospital Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Jadhav recorded the statement of the complainant. On the basis of his statement, an offence bearing C.R. No.79 of 2000 was registered against the accused. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out. (D) It is the case of the prosecution that, in morning, the Deputy Superintendent of Police went to village Korhale and prepared spot panchanama in presence two panchas. From the spot, he seized soil mixed with blood, one stone stained with blood and one human tooth. All these articles were seized under spot panchanama. On the same day, he recorded the statement of eye witnesses and on 2nd November, 2010 he arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 under arrest panchanama. On 3rd November, 2000, he visited Pravara Hospital and recorded the statement of injured. At that time he also seized blood stained cloths of injured Dinkar, Kusum and Kamal in presence of panchas. (E) It is the case of the prosecution that, accused Dadu while in Police custody was interrogated by the Police. At that time, he gave confession that he is ready to produce the stick and axe. Accordingly his confession was recorded in presence of panchas. Thereafter the accused led the Police and panchas to one field and he produced the stick and axe, which he has concealed in the heap of Bajra Crops. There were blood stains on the said axe and stick produced by the accused. Both these articles were seized under panchanama in presence of panchas on the spot. On 4th November, 2000 the Investigating Officer arrested accused No.4. On 7th November, 2000, Investigating Officer sent Head Constable Shinde for recording the statement of injured Nirmala at Nashik. However, Head Constable Shinde reported that she is not in a position to give her statement and accordingly submitted his report. On 16th November, 2000 as the Investigating Officer Mr. Jadhav transferred, further investigation of the said crime was handed over to A.P.I. Pachpute. (F) It is the case of the prosecution that, A.P.I. Pachpute, also recorded statements of witnesses. He sent the injured to doctor for taking their blood samples. Thereafter, he sent all the muddemal with blood samples to C.A., Aurangabad for its analysis. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kopargaon. (G) Since the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the trial Judge committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge under sections 323 and 307 read with 34 of I.P.C. was framed and read over and explained to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence, as it appears from the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that, on the date of incident it is the complainant and injured who assaulted the accused persons. They have also filed complaint to the Police Station and on the basis of their complaint, N.C. was registered against the complainant, his son and daughters. It is defence of the accused that the complainant and other witnesses sustained injuries in road accident. ;


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