KAILAS S/O. SUKLAL DEOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41357


                                                                     CriAppeal-287-2016
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 2016

                 Kailas s/o Suklal Deore
                 Age – 33 years, Occupation Driver,
                 R/o. Shirpur, Near Kanya Shala,
                 Shirpur, Taluka Shirpur,
                 District Dhule.                                  … Appellant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra                         … Respondent

                                                 …..
                           Mr. N. L. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Appellant.
                       Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                 ..…


                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on        : 07.09.2026
                                         Pronounced on      : 08.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order

                 dated 19.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule

                 in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2010 convicting the appellant for offence

                 under sections 323 and 325 of IPC.



                                        PROSECUTION STORY

                 2.    Prosecution story in trial court is that, on 11.03.2010, injured

                 Leeabai was all alone in the house. There was knock on her door and
                                                     CriAppeal-287-2016
                                  -2-

when she answered, she noticed appellant at her doors. Due to

previous acquaintance, there were talks between them. Accused

demanded Rs.500/- from injured. While she was taking out cash from

the cupboard, it is alleged that, accused initially hit her by means of

stone on the face and subsequently, when he attempted to stab her

with screw driver, the said blow was warded off. Hearing her shouts,

neighbours rushed and caught accused red handed. On the statement

of injured, crime was registered for offence under Sections 323, 324,

325, 326, 307 and 452 of IPC. On completion of investigation,

appellant was duly chargesheeted and tried and ultimately came to be

convicted, but only for offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC,

and for the rest of the charges, he came to be acquitted. Said

judgment is subject matter of the instant appeal.


                            SUBMISSIONS


On behalf of the Appellant-Accused :


3.    Learned counsel for the appellant would plead innocence and

false implication. According to him, there is no cogent, reliable or

direct eye witness account. That, moreover, there is no testimony of

injured victim as she had died. Medical expert is also not examined to

substantiate the injuries. That, Neighbours’ evidence is hearsay and
                                                     CriAppeal-287-2016
                                  -3-

therefore, according to him, such evidence ought not to have been

accepted by learned trial court, and thereby he prays to set aside the

said judgment.



On behalf of the Respondent-State :


4.    In answer to above, learned APP would point out that, very FIR

is by the injured lady. That, subsequently she died and therefore her

testimony could not be adduced. However, according to him, there is

overwhelming evidence of immediate neighbours who had caught

accused red handed and there were blood stains on his hands. That,

immediately injured disclosed the incident and named him. That, on

her very statement crime was also recorded, but unfortunately, due to

her demise at later point of time, prosecution could not adduce her

evidence. He pointed out that, though medical expert is not

examined, there are medical papers are on record. That, on the

strength of oral evidence and above documentary evidence, learned

trial court committed no error in returning guilt of the appellant. For

want of merits, appeal is sought to be dismissed.



5.    After hearing above submissions and on going through the

record, it appears that on 11.03.2010, when injured Leeabai was all
                                                     CriAppeal-287-2016
                                  -4-

alone in the house, in the afternoon accused paid visit to her house

and demanded Rs.500/-. That, in that backdrop there was said to be

assault on her by means of stone. She raised alarm inviting

neighbours and she reported the incident to them, who took her to

hospital, and there her statement was recorded. Said complaint is at

Exhibit 52 and it is got Exhibited through PW7 Dnyaneshwar, who

was working as a Medical Officer at Sanjiwan Hospital. Consequently,

injured having died, obviously, she was not available to adduce

evidence in the Court.



               EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT


6.    Prosecution has adduced evidence of in all nine witnesses.

Their roll and status and the sum and substance of their evidence is as

under :



7.    PW1 Deelip, who deposed at Exhibit 33 about hearing shouts of

woman in the house of Mali around 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. and two boys

from the locality had caught a person. He claims to have seen blood

stains on the hands of said person, whom he identified in the court to

be appellant-accused.
                                                   CriAppeal-287-2016
                                   -5-

8.    PW2 Prabhavati, a neighbour, deposed at Exhibit 34 that on

11.03.2010, at about 2.15 to 2.30 p.m. she heard shouts of Leelabai.

Therefore she and one Lata Wani went to the house of Leelabai and

saw one person came out of the house and his hands were blood

stained. When he attempted to run away, Namdeo (PW3) and Sanjay

(PW4) caught that person and Leelabai was taken to hospital. She

identified accused in the court.



9.    PW3 Namdeo also deposed on similar lines that on 11.03.2010

while he was in his house, he heard shouts of some ladies “catch,

catch”, and so he came out of the house and saw one person coming

out from the house of Mali and so he and one Shimpi caught hold of

that person, whose hands were blood stained. He deposed that, Smt.

Mali told them about assault by said person by means of stone and

screw driver for not giving him cash.



10.   PW4 Sanjay corroborated PW3 about hearing shouts in the

afternoon of 11.03.2010 and so he going there and even chasing

accused and accused was caught with his hands blood stained. He

also deposed that injured told all of them that accused assaulted her

and she had bleeding injuries on the face.
                                                    CriAppeal-287-2016
                                   -6-

11.   PW5 Lata, yet another neighbour, deposed to the above extent

about hearing shouts from the house of Leeabai and this witness

coming out and seeing accused come out of house of Leeabai with

blood stained hands and trying to run away and being caught. She

claims that injured Leeabai told her that accused demanded Rs.500/-

and while she was about to give Rs.500/-, accused assaulted her with

stone and that accused was having screw driver. She deposed that she

was knowing accused since prior to the incident as he used to come

with Advocate Endait to the house of Mali.



12.   PW6 Bhagwan Mali, husband of injured, who is examined at

Exhibit 40, testified that on 11.03.2010 he received information about

assault on his wife and so when he went to the house, he saw his wife

in injured condition and when asked, she told him about accused

coming to the house demanding Rs.500/- and while she was about to

remove money, accused lifted stone and hit her.



13.   PW7 is the medical expert who deposed at Exhibit 43 that on

11.03.2010 Leeabai was admitted in the hospital on account of injury

due to assault. In his presence police recorded her statement which he

endorsed. He identified it to be at Exhibit 44.
                                                     CriAppeal-287-2016
                                    -7-

14.   PW8 and PW9 are Investigating Officers, who carried out

investigation at relevant time.


                     ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION


15.   On complete re-appreciation of above discussed evidence, i.e.

substantive evidence, and on going through the cross of above

witnesses, it is emerging that, there is no evidence of injured as she

had died. However, she had given history of assault which was noted

by police in the hospital and the very Doctor who certified her fitness

to give statement has identified her statement as well as his

endorsement over it. Therefore, there is testimony of injured Leeabai.



16.   Above discussed evidence shows that, immediate neighbours as

well as husband of injured are also examined. They are all consistent

about hearing shouts from the house of injured and seeing accused

come out of the house with blood stained hands and accused being

caught red handed by these witnesses, who are immediate

neighbours. Nothing adverse or damaging has been brought in their

cross so as to disbelieve their version.



17.   Though there are allegations by prosecution that there was

assault by stone as well as screw driver, it seems that though said
                                                    CriAppeal-287-2016
                                    -8-

screw driver was put to use, its blows was said to be warded off.

Consequently, there was evidence i.e. oral account of witnesses, about

assault by means of stone on the face.


18.   It appears to be the case of prosecution that, accused was

acquainted with injured and he was also allowed to enter the house.

There seems to be some transaction of money i.e. Rs.500/-. Husband

deposed about hearing his wife report him that when she was about

to give money, she had said to accused that she would inform such

handing over of money to the employer of accused, and this resulted

in the assault. Stone is said to be put to use.


19.   Prosecution has placed on record MLC Certificate Exhibit 26. As

many as nine injuries are shown i.e. in the nature of “(1) CLW on

right cheek, (2) CLW on right supra orbital region, (3) CLW on upper

lip three in number in the mucosa, (4) CLW on lower lip mucosal

inner aspect three in number, (5) CLW on upper lip, (6)CLW on left

cheek, (7) incised would on left parietal region, (8) CLW on right

high parietal region, (9) CLW on high parietal region and (10)

tenderness on right wrist joint CLW”.


      Therefore, indeed offence of causing grievous hurt is proved by

prosecution.
                                                   CriAppeal-287-2016
                                 -9-

20.   Perused the judgment under challenge, it is noticed that trial

court has correctly appreciated the entire oral and documentary

evidence on record. Findings are supported by sound reasons. The

view taken by trial court is the possible view that could emerge even

on re-appreciation. No case for interference being made out,

following order is passed :

                               ORDER

              The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

Later on :

21.   On pronouncement of this judgment, learned counsel for the

appellant seeks six weeks time to surrender so as to enable the

appellant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned APP

opposed the same.


22.   However, considering the above request, six weeks time is

granted to the appellant to surrender.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre