V.K.JADHAV,J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Ahmednagar dated 10.12.2004 in R.T.C. No. 83 of 2002.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision Application are as follows :- I. As per the prosecution case on 28.08.2002, at about 1.00 pm, PW-1 - Bhausaheb Kapase was going to his house at village Nimgaon by selling milk at Ahmednagar. Accused No.1 in front of one factory at Kedgaon obstructed PW-1 - Bhausaheb Kapase by placing his motorcycle before him and further given him the threats. It further reveals from the prosecution story that on the same day at about 4.00 pm, PW- 1 - Bhausaheb went to his agricultural field and started cutting the grass. The land of accused is situated adjacent to his land. Both the accused came in their field and PW-1 questioned them as to why accused no.1 had placed his motorcycle in his way. Thus, accused no.1 abused him and also extended the beating with the help of fist and kick blows and accused hit him by stick under his left eye. The accused have also beaten his brother - Sachin Bajirao Kapase. II. On the basis of complaint lodged by PW-1 - Bhausaheb Kapase, the Crime No. 156 of 2002 came to be registered in the concerned Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Head Constable Mr.T.B. Kolhe has submitted the charge sheet against both of the accused before the Court. The learned Judge of the trial Court has framed the charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and further also framed the additional charge under Section 326 of IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. III. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. After recording the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate has acquitted both the accused for the offences under Sections 325, 504 and 506 and read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, this criminal revision application preferred by the original complainant.
(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Judge of the trial Court has discarded the evidence of PW-1 - Bhausaheb Kapase, who is an injured witness and further ignored the ocular evidence of PW-4 - Sunil Tukaram Kapase. The learned counsel submits that the medical evidence corroborates the allegations leveled against both the accused persons. The learned Judge of the trial Court has recorded the perverse finding and erroneously acquitted the accused. The learned counsel submits that the criminal revision application deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order of acquittal and both the respondents - accused persons may be convicted for the offence for which they were charged and tried.;