DATTATRAYA BALASAHEB GHODKEversusNARESH PRALAHAD GHODKE AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:42918


                                                                       CriAppeal-465-2006
                                                     -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2006


                 Dattatraya Balasaheb Ghodke
                 Age : 31 years, Occupation : Agriculture,
                 R/o : At Post Mirajgaon, Taluka Karjat,
                 District Ahmednagar.                                 … Appellant
                                                               (Ori. Complainant)

                       Versus


                 1.    Naresh Prahalad Ghodke
                       Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri, Service,

                 2.    Anil Hiralal Kadam,
                       Age : 38 years, Occ. Agri.,

                 3.    Chaya Prahalad Ghodke,
                       Age : 40 years, Occu. Household,

                 4.    Maya Anil Kadam,
                       Age : 35 years, Occu : Service,

                       Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 all R/o
                       At Post Mirajgaon, Taluka Karjat,
                       District Ahmednagar.                         … Respondents
                                                                     (Ori. Accused)

                                                 ..…
                       Ms. Madhaveshwari S. Mhase, Advocate for the Appellant.
                        Mr. A. K. Gawali, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
                                                 …..

                                          CORAM :          ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on          : 21.09.2026
                                          Pronounced on        : 22.09.2026
                                                     CriAppeal-465-2006
                                 -2-


JUDGMENT :


1.    Original complainant, who instituted S.T.C. No. 168/2002

alleging offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC,

hereby takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated

15.07.2005 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Ahmednagar.



2.    In short, private complaint was filed by present appellant on the

premise that, on 10.03.2002, accused persons, i.e. respondents

herein, got annoyed when complainant’s mother Shakuntala asked to

do the work of filling pit properly. It is alleged that after hurling

abuses, accused persons dragged complainant and his mother

Shakuntalai from the house. She as well as complainant were beaten

causing injuries. Accused also issued threats to kill. Report to that

extent was tried to be lodged with police, but as it was not

entertained, above complaint has been filed. In support of such

accusations, complainant adduced his own evidence as well as

evidence of medical expert. On analyzing the same and after hearing

both parties, learned trial court was pleased to acquit present

respondents from the above charge. Hence, instant appeal.
                                                    CriAppeal-465-2006
                                 -3-




3.    Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that, case in

the trial court was proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, there was

evidence of complainant who was party to the occurrence of assault

on his mother and himself. That, complainant as well as his mother

were treated by medical expert and said expert was also examined in

the trial court to substantiate the assault. That, testimony of

complainant and medical witness was convincing and trustworthy.

That, nothing adverse has been brought in the cross of these

witnesses. That, even learned trial court observed that, their

testimony is un-shattered. However, learned trial court acquitted the

accused persons merely for not examining mother of complainant.

Thus, she questions the maintainability and sustainability of the

sentence and prays to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing

the appeal.



4.    Per contra learned counsel for the respondents would justify the

order of acquittal by contending that three was false implication and

that complainant’s evidence failed to inspire confidence and star

witness, i.e. mother of complainant, was not examined in support of

the accusations.
                                                    CriAppeal-465-2006
                                 -4-




5.    In the line of above argument, evidence on record is put to

scrutiny. There is only evidence of complainant and medical expert.



6.    PW1 Dattatraya-complainant deposed about occurrence taking

place on 10.03.2002. At that time, employees of Gram Panchayat

were filling the pit after repairing water connection and at that time

his mother asked them to do the work properly. Feeling angry by the

same, it is alleged that, accused no.1 rushed on his mother and

therefore, he and his mother ran inside the house. But, it is further

alleged that, accused nos. 1 to 4 entered their house and dragged

them both out of the house, accused no.1 hit complainant on the right

ear with the help of wood and after accused nos. 1 and 2

incapacitated his mother by holding her hands, it is alleged that,

remaining accused assaulted his mother. Accused nos. 1 and 2

instigated accused nos. 3 and 4 to beat them. He claims that when he

intervened to save his mother, he was also beaten by kicks and fist

blows. His shouts attracted neighbours Tulsabai and Saraswati who

pacified the quarrel and thereafter they visited Police Station, and

then visited hospital but police did not take cognizance of his

complaint and hence he lodged private complaint.
                                                     CriAppeal-465-2006
                                  -5-

      There is extensive cross about complainant’s family, their

status, geographical location of their house and its surroundings. He

is unable to give names of the employees. According to him, incident

lasted for half an hour and about 10 persons had gathered at the spot.

He also gave names of the neighbours to be present till the quarrel

ended. According to him, when he took his mother to the hospital,

doctor was not present and therefore he took her to a private hospital,

where she was admitted for a day and discharged on the same day.

Rest is all denial.



7.    Another witness on behalf of complainant is PW2 Ajay Shinde,

a Medical Officer at P.H.C. Mirajgaon and he deposed that on

11.03.2002 he examined Shakuntala Bajaji Ghodke and came across

abrasion to right maxillary region, pain and tenderness to the neck

and said injuries to be simple in nature. On examining complainant

Dattatraya, he came across contusion on right maxillary region and it

was also simple in nature. He identified certificates issued by him at

Exhibits 20 and 21.



      While under cross, he admitted that he did not come across any

injury on the ear and that injuries noticed by him are possible on

account of fall due to slipping from motorcycle.
                                                     CriAppeal-465-2006
                                   -6-




8.    Above is the only evidence on behalf of the complainant.

Primarily allegations are dragging and assault to mother i.e.

Shakuntala. She is also shown to be examined by Medical Officer

PW2, but she has not testified. The incident erupted only because she

asked employees of Gram Panchayat to do work properly. However,

surprisingly she is withheld from being a witness. In fact she was star

witness. Similarly, though complainant in his evidence stated that,

occurrence was intervened and pacified by Tulsabai, Saraswati, they

too are not examined. Therefore, there is no sufficient corroboration

to the testimony of complainant.



9.    Here, it is noticed that according to complainant, after the

incident, they went to hospital and they were treated. While under

cross, he stated that he took treatment with Dr. Chede because

Medical officer at the Rural Hospital was not present. In fact, PW2,

who is examined, is in fact Medical Officer at P.H.C., but complainant

has stated in his chief that they went to private hospital of Dr. Chede

where his mother was treated. Said private medical practitioner is not

examined. Therefore this also contributes to the veracity of

complainant’s story.
                                                      CriAppeal-465-2006
                                  -7-

10.   For above reasons, as complainant’s story fails to inspire

confidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial court

committed no error in acquitting the respondents. No case being

made out to interfere, following order is passed :

                                ORDER

              The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre