THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANKARSINGH GOPALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 74/1994, which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The said appeal was filed by respondent to challenge the judgment and order of R.C.C. No. 507/1991, which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, ('J.M.F.C.' for short) Nanded. The J.M.F.C., Nanded had convicted and sentenced the respondent for offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short). Rigorous imprisonment of two years was given and fine of Rs.2500/- was imposed by the learned J.M.F.C. This decision is set aside by the Sessions Court. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) In short, the facts leading to the institution of the present proceeding can be stated as follows :- First informant Balbhim is resident of Sangvi Gopalnagar. There is some dispute between the first informant and the present respondent/accused in respect of boundary of their portions from land Survey No. 5. On 15.6.1991 at about 12.30 noon when the first informant went to the field along with Government Surveyor Masood and some assistants for taking measurement of the land purchased by him, present respondent Shankarsingh came there with one unknown person. Respondent questioned the first informant as to why he was taking the measurement of the land and he gave abuses. Accused interfered in the measurement and then he took iron bar which was with his associate and gave blow of iron bar on right leg of first informant below knee. The first informant sustained bleeding injury. The persons who had gathered there separated the quarrel. The first informant sustained fracture injury to his right leg. On the same day, he gave report and the crime came to be registered in Bhagyanagar Police Station under section 324 of IPC and then under section 326 of IPC. Doctor issued certificate that there was fracture of right leg and the injury was caused by hard and blunt object. Police recorded statements of some witnesses and then filed the chargesheet.

(3.) Prosecution examined in all ten witnesses before the learned J.M.F.C., who include the first informant and the doctor. The Trial Court believed this evidence. The Sessions Court has held that there is possibility of exercise of right of private defence and the case is covered by section 97 of IPC.