- (1.)HEARD Shri. A. Shelat, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri. S. G. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 to 4 and Shri. Sonare, learned A. P. P. for the respondent no.5. Perused the record.
(2.)THE learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehekar, by his judgment and order dated14-12-1999 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 178/1996 acquitted the non-applicants nos. 1 to 4 of the offences punishable under sections 324, 504 and 506 read with section34 of I. P. C. THE present revision application is preferred challenging the said judgment of acquittal.
The incident which gave rise to the prosecution against the non-applicant nos. 1 to 4 took place on14-11-1996 at about7. 30 A. M. and for that Gayabai (P. W.1) lodged report - Exhibit 27 at Police Station, Lonar, on the basis of which the offence was registered vide crime No. 133/1996 against the non-applicants nos. 1 to 4 and A. S. I. Rameshwar Kale (P.W.8) who was attached to Police Station, Lonar, carried out investigation. As per the prosecution case the complainant Gayabai and witness Pralhad (P.W.6), Nirjalabai Pralhad (P.W.5) and one Kailash Pralhad came to be assaulted with sticks by non-applicants nos. 1 to 4 by going to the house of Gayabai and that they also received injuries as a result of assault. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer on visiting the place of occurrence drew Spot Panchanama Exhibit 29 in presence of witness - Govinda Rathod (P.W.2) and seized blood stained clothes namely Shirt and Baniyam from injured Pralhad Shamrao under seizure memo Exhibit 31, in presence of witness Laxman Rathod (P.W.3 ). At the time when the Spot Panchanama was drawn, two sticks and spade lying on the place of occurrence were also seized. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed.

The non applicants/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tired. Their defence is that of denial. They also contended that on the date of incident the complainant and the witnesses - Pralhad, Nirjalabai and others assaulted them and their family members and in that assault they have sustained injuries on their persons, they reported the matter to the police but no cognizance was taken. They have examined witness - Dr. Sau. Chhaya Mapari as defence witness who was Medical Officer attached to Primary Health Center, Lonar and on14-11-1996 i. e. the date on which the incident took place she examined Uddhao Vishwanath (non-applicant no.2), Nimbabai Vishwanath, Ashabai Vishwanath, Vitthal Vishwanath (non-applicant no.3)who were brought by the Police Constable buckle No. 756, Police Station Lonar and issued certificates Exhibit 59,60,61 and 62 respectively in respect of the injuries which she noted on their person.

(3.)THE learned Trial Court examined in all 8 witnesses including complainant - Gayabai (P. W.1), Govinda Rathod Panch Witness on Spot Panchanama Exhibit 290, Laxman Rathod (P.W.3) who when appeared on the scene of offence saw Gayabai, Pralhad having sustained injuries and he took the injured to the hospital and in his presence the blood stained clothes were seized under the Panchanama Exhibit 31. Deorao Bhalerao (P.W.4) who claimed to be an eye witness to the incident, Nirjala Pralhad (P.W.5) and Pralhad Kawale (P.W.6), Mohan Chavan (P.W.7) who acted as Panch witness in whose presence Saree and blouse of complainant Gayabai came to be seized under Panchanama Exhibit 31 and Rameshwar Kale A. S. I. who carried out the investigation. THE learned Magistrate on assessment and appreciation of evidence led so far by the prosecution found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the non-applicants/accused committed offence with which they were charged. As can be seen from the judgment of the trial court he found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the incident including the injured was discrepant on material particulars. He also found that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused Uddhao Vishwanath, Limbabai Vishwanath, Ashabai Vishwanath and accused Vitthal Vishwanath. THE prosecution has failed to establish genesis of the incident. THE trial court therefore, acquitted the accused. Hence this revision.
Mr. Shelat, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the presence of accused persons and their participation in the incident and also the injuries sustained by the complainant and other injured persons is conclusively established. As a matter of fact the incident that took place is not disputed by the accused. However, the trial court has discarded the evidence of prosecution witnesses only on the ground that the factum of injuries sustained by the complainant and the prosecution witnesses has not been proved through the evidence of Medical Officer who examined them. The learned Magistrate giving emphasis on omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, discarded their evidence. The seizure of blood stained shirt and Baniyan of injured Pralhad has been proved. But the trial court has discarded that evidence only for the reason that the seized articles were not sent to the Chemical Analyser and that the prosecution has not sought the report of the Chemical Analyser. It is submitted that the appreciation and assessment of evidence by the trial court is totally perverse which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He submitted that the minor discrepancies and variance in the evidence does not make the prosecution case doubtful. While appreciating the evidence the court should adopt a rational approach that hyper technicalities and figment of imagination should not prevent sifting and weighing of evidence. He submitted that when factum of injuries is established through the ocular evidence, which is consistent and cogent, grave illegality has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the prosecution case as regards assaults on the victims merely on the ground that technically factum of injuries is not established by examining the Medical Officer as a witness who has issued medical certificate on examining the injured persons. Learned counsel therefore, urged that the matter needs interference and the revision application be allowed and the case be remitted back to the trial court for retrial.