ANKUSH S/O. ASARAM GARADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37767


                                                                        CriAppeal-318-2019



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2019

                 .     Ankush s/o Asaram Garad,
                       Age : 26 years, Occupation : Business,
                       R/o Surdi Najik, Taluka Majalgaon,
                       District Beed.                             ... Appellant
                                                            [Original Complainant]
                              Versus

                 1.    The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Police Officer,
                       Majalgaon (Rural),
                       District Beed.

                 2.    Atmaram s/o Uttamrao Kale,
                       Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agril.,
                       R/o Surdi Najik, Taluka Majalgaon,
                       District Beed.

                 3.    Baliram @ Balishor s/o Atmaram Kale,
                       Age : 21 years, Occupation : Agril.,
                       R/o as above.                             ... Respondents
                                                            [R.No.2&3 Orig. Accused]

                                             .....
                 Mr. Akash Rodge, Advocate h/f Mr.P.N.Muley, Advocate for the
                 Appellant.
                 Mr. N.D. Raje, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                 Ms. Ashwini P. Patil h/f Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent
                 Nos. 2 and 3.
                                                 .....


                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on          : 20-08-2026
                                         Pronounced on        : 21-08-2026


                                                  [1]
                                                        CriAppeal-318-2019



JUDGMENT :

1.      The instant appeal challenges judgment and order of acquittal

dated 07-03-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Majalgaon in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2015, arising out of judgment

and order of conviction      dated 05-02-2015 rendered by learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Majalgaon in R.C.C. No.16 of

2014.

                      BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.      Before learned JMFC, prosecution was launched against present

respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the premise that, on 11-12-2013, while

informant Ankush Asaram Garad was proceeding to Majalgaon by the

road, accused Atmaram Kale and Baliram @ Balishor Kale came from

opposite side. Informant questioned them for making his brother-in-

law drink liquor, who after getting drunk, beat her sister. It is alleged

that, accused assaulted informant by means of rod and also issued

threats to kill.    On above accusations, report was lodged with

Majalgaon Police Station (R), who registered Crime bearing No.141

of 2013 for offence under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After investigation, both

accused were chargesheeted and tried by learned JMFC vide R.C.C.

No.16 of 2014.

                                   [2]
                                                        CriAppeal-318-2019



      At trial, case of prosecution was rested on in all seven witnesses

i.e. PW1 Ankush Garad, complainant, PW2 Dnyaneshwar Garad, PW3

Dattatraya Sandipan Ghatul, PW4 Bajrang Garad, PW5 Ankush

Ramrao Garad, PW6 Dr.Rupali Solanke, Medical Expert and PW7

Subhash Pawar, Investigating Officer.

      The learned JMFC appreciated both oral and documentary

evidence and recorded guilt of the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 for

offence under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide

judgment and order 05-02-2015.

      Feeling aggrieved by the same, convicts preferred appeal before

the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, who re-

appreciated the evidence and allowed the appeal by setting aside the

order of trial Court. Dissatisfied by the same, informant has preferred

instant appeal.

                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant-Original Informant :

3.    Learned counsel for the appellant/informant would point out

that, there was cogent, convincing evidence on the point of

occurrence. That, injured himself was a star witness. That apart,

prosecution has adduced evidence of two other witnesses. That, there

was use of iron rod and the said rod is recovered. That, Medical

                                  [3]
                                                        CriAppeal-318-2019



Expert has confirmed injury due to said article and therefore, learned

trial Court has rightly convicted the accused.



4.    He next submitted that, the learned First Appellate Court,

misread the evidence on record. That, undue importance is given to

minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and learned First

Appellate Court erred in holding that there is no independent witness.

According to learned counsel, in fact when the evidence of informant

injured itself was convincing, there was no need for corroboration,

however, there are two witnesses, who had seen the occurrence and

have duly deposed. According to him, learned First Appellate Court

also erred in attributing delay, which was merely of seven hours. He

also criticized the finding of First Appellate Court that seized article

was not confronted to Medical Expert.

      On account of non-appreciation of evidence in its correct

perspective, he seeks reliance on Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the cases of Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCR 1835 ;

State of U.P. v. M.K.Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 and Judgment dated

14-09-2010 passed in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya

Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1243 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal

No.1399 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal Nos.1363-1365 of 2010.

                                  [4]
                                                      CriAppeal-318-2019



On behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3/Original Accused :

5.    Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/original accused

would support the judgment and order of First Appellate Court. She

pointed out that, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the

charges. Taking this Court through the testimony of informant, she

pointed out that the same is ambiguous and non-specific on the point

of actual assault. She pointed out that, to whom actual assault is

attributed is not proved by prosecution. She further pointed out that,

witnesses PW4 and PW5, who are claimed to be independent

witnesses, are not consistent and are at variance on material counts.

On this court, she took this Court through the testimony of these two

witnesses. Alleging false implication due to enmity, she canvasses in

favour of judgment of acquittal and prays to dismiss appeal for want

of merits.



On Behalf the Respondent No.1-State :

6.    Learned APP has adopted the submissions advanced by learned

counsel for informant.



         BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE AND ITS ANALYSIS

7.    Re-appreciated the evidence. Case of prosecution seems to be

                                 [5]
                                                       CriAppeal-318-2019



rested on seven witnesses.       Crucial witnesses are informant PW1

Ankish Asaram Garad and eye witnesses PW4 Bajrang Garad and PW5

Ankush Ramrao Garad.

         As pointed out, it does emerge from testimony of PW1

complainant that he is unable to state which out of the two accused

actually assaulted because he merely stated that accused assaulted on

his head with iron rod but who indulged in the overt act is not getting

clear.



8.       Though PW4 and PW5 are examined as eye witnesses, it is

noticed that according to PW4, it is Atmaram who assaulted by iron

rod whereas PW5 attributes assault to accused Kale. Therefore,

though both claiming to be together at the relevant time, they are not

consistent.



9.       As pointed out, according to informant, incident had taken

place on road, but above witnesses named the spot as in front of shop.

Therefore, actual spot is not proved by leading cogent evidence.



10.      Again as submitted, PW6 Medical Expert has expressed

possibility of injuries on account of fall.

                                    [6]
                                                        CriAppeal-318-2019



11.   Such aspects do not seem to have been appreciated by learned

JMFC and therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly

intervened.   There is no illegality or perversity in the manner of

appreciation of evidence at the hands of First Appellate Court.

Though learned counsel for appellant relied on above referred rulings,

facts in those cases and the one in hand are clearly distinguishable.

      No case being made out to interfere in the impugned judgment,

appeal deserves to be dismissed.        Accordingly, I proceed to pass

following order.


                                ORDER

                     Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                   [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



SPT




                                  [7]