XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:28841-DB
                                                  (1)
                                                             Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2024
                        X. Y. Z.
                        R/o. Nannaj Dumala,
                        Sangamner, Taluka Sangamner,
                        Dist. Ahilyanagar.
                              VERSUS
                 1.     State of Maharashtra,
                        Through the office of the
                        Learned Public Prosecutor,
                 2.     Piraji Kashinath Kadnar,
                        Age : 36 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
                 3.     Swapnil Somnath Kadnar,
                        Age : 21 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
                 4.     Dattu @ Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadnar,
                        Age. 31 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
                 5.     Sunita Paraji Kadnar, Occ. Agriculture,
                        All of the above two to five
                        R/o. NannajDumala, Taluka Sangamner,
                        Dist. Ahilyanagar
                                                    ...
                        Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. S. M. Jain
                        A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mrs. M.N. Ghanekar
                                                 …..
                                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                    DATE      : 10.07.2026
                             (2)
                                         Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt


JUDGMENT (PER SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :



1.        The appellant/victim, who is the informant, has

challenged the acquittal of present respondent Nos. 2 to 4

who are original accused in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2016 for

the offenses punishable under       Sections 452, 354, 326,

323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at the

hands of learned Additional Sessions Judge,        Sangamner

(hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Judge”), under

judgment and order dated 21.02.2024 in the aforesaid case.


2.        As per the prosecution case, the appellant/victim

lodged complaint with Sangamner Taluka Police Station,

Dist. Ahilynagar alleging that on 5.6.2016, respondent Nos. 2

to 4 forcibly entered into her house.   Swapnil Kadnar i.e.

respondent No.3, pressed her breast. Respondent No.2 Piraji

assaulted her mother with an iron rod and gave its blow on

the head of her mother, whereas respondent No.4-Dattu torn

her clothes and Sunita Kadnar, by pulling her hair, pushed

her down and assaulted her with fist and kick blows. All of

them threatened her of dire consequences.       However, the

appellant/victim somehow escaped and raised alarm.           Her

father rushed to home on getting information of the incident,
                              (3)
                                           Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
but by that time all the accused had left that place. Since her

mother had sustained bleeding injury to her head, her father

took her to Dr. Tambe’s Hospital at Sangamner in the vehicle

of Kailas Karbari Bachkar.     Her mother was unconscious

while under treatment.     As such, she lodged the FIR on

6.6.2016 and accordingly, Sangamner Taluka Police Station

authority registered the crime against respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

The investigation started and all the accused/ respondents

were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence. However, the

learned Trial Judge, after conducting the trial, acquitted the

respondents.


3.         The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

argued that the learned Trial Judge did not appreciate the

evidence in proper perspective and ignored the evidence of eye

witnesses. According to him, there was medical evidence in

respect of injury sustained by the mother of appellant/victim

coupled with her oral testimony. Moreover, the victim’s own

evidence also suggested as to how all the accused persons

assaulted them and outraged modesty of the victim by

pressing her breast and tearing her clothes. He further added

that, the learned Trial Judge erroneously relied heavily on the

evidence of defence witnesses. As such, he prayed for reversal
                                (4)
                                           Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
of the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 into conviction in

respect of charges against them.

4.         Though the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2

to 5 remained absent, but with the help of learned counsel for

the petitioner as well as learned AGP, we went through the

impugned judgment as well as testimonies of the prosecution

as well as defence witnesses.



5.         So far as charge against the accused under

Sections 452, 326, 323, 504, & 506 read with Section 34 of

the IPC is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that

respondent No.2-Piraji, had inflicted injury on the head of

P.W.2 i.e. mother of victim.    However, though the victim as

well as her mother stated so before the learned Trial Judge,

but in the cross-examination, P.W.2 has admitted that after

the incident, her husband had taken her to the house of

Bachkar by walking only and that she had not become

unconscious. This fact is totally contradictory to the evidence

given by the informant.     According to    the     case of the

prosecution as well as the appellant/victim, P.W.2, after

getting injured, had become unconscious and she was taken

to the hospital in the vehicle of Bachkar. As such, it can be

seen that P.W. 2 is stating contrary to the case of
                             (5)
                                          Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
prosecution.   Moreover, she in clear terms, stated in the

cross-examination that it is their job to lodge a false

complaint and blackmail the person against whom such

complaint is made.



6.         It is extremely important to note that according to

the prosecution, the iron rod, which is allegedly used by

respondent No.2-Piraji for inflicting injury on the head of

P.W.2, was in fact produced by P.W.2. However, P.W.2 in her

cross-examination clearly denied the said fact.    Moreover, it

has also come on record by way of defence evidence that Piraji

was in fact got injured at the hands of father of the victim.

P.W.4, who is the victim’s father, has admitted in his cross-

examination that on the day of incident he had a quarrel with

respondent No.2-Piraji and he had inflicted knife injury to

Piraji. Even the defence witness Dr. Rajendra Bhausaheb

Maske, who is also P.W.7, has admitted the fact that he had

examined Piraji on 5.6.2016 and found multiple CLWs on

Piraji’s both hands along with cut injuries. There was also

blunt trauma over the chest and abdomen. However, though

the prosecution has made Piraji as accused No.1, but did not

explain about injuries found on his person. As such, there

may be possibility that the complainant party was aggressive
                                       (6)
                                                        Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
at the time of incident and only to shield their act, the victim

might       have          lodged       the       report        against      the

respondents/accused.



7.      Further, P.W.7 Dr. Maske, who had examined victim’s

mother and found that her head injury was simple in nature,

in the cross-examination itself he has admitted that no blood

was oozing from head injury and it was merely a superficial

injury. He further stated that, he did not find any injury on

the body of P.W.2 caused by a stick.                    Further, the blunt

trauma over chest and abdomen of P.W.2 was also not visible.

He also clarified that P.W. 2 at the time of examination was

not unconscious. As such, the admissions given by this

Medical Officer, in relation to the injuries allegedly sustained

by P.W.2, are totally contradictory to the prosecution’s case.

Considering all these aspects, prima facie it appears that the

prosecution        case    is   highly       doubtful   and     unbelievable.

Moreover,     it    seems       that     due    to   earlier     rivalry,   the

appellant/victim might have lodged false complaint against

the respondent Nos. 2 to 5/accused.



8.          So far as charge under Section 354 of the IPC is

concerned, the main allegations regarding the same are
                               (7)
                                         Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
against respondent No.3 and 4 namely Swapnil and Dattu.

The victim has alleged that Swapnil had pressed her breast,

whereas Dattu had torn her clothes. However, P.W.6 Dr.

Bhaskar Bhavar, who had examined the victim in Rural

Hospital, Sangamner, has clearly stated that though she gave

history of blunt trauma over lower back and chest, but there

were no visible injuries noted. Further this witness also did

not find any marks of violence.      There were no external

injuries anywhere on the body of the appellant/victim.

Therefore, her allegations that accused Swapnil pressed her

breast and accused Dattu torn her clothes, do not get support

from the evidence on record.



9.    So far as presence of accused Swapnil on the spot is

concerned, the accused have examined one Chandrakant

Wahval as D.W.2, who runs Restaurant under name and style

as “Hemant Garden & Restaurant” at Aale Phata Junner.

According to this witness, there were CCTV cameras in his

hotel. He has deposed that on 6.7.2016, Sangamner Taluka

Police had come to his hotel and took away CCTV footage of

the day 5.6.2016 in one pen drive.     This witness further

stated that according to the said CCTV     footage, accused-

Swapnil was present in his hotel on 5.6.2016 at about 10.00
                               (8)
                                            Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
a.m. in the morning. It has already come on record that the

place of incident was 90 Kms away from this hotel. According

to the prosecution, the incident had taken place at 9.00 a.m.

on the said day. Thus, the presence of accused-Swapnil in

the aforesaid hotel at 10.00 a.m., which is 90 Kms away from

the spot of incident, clearly indicates that he was not present

on the spot of incident. Therefore, the allegation against

accused Swapnil about outraging the modest of victim

appears to be highly doubtful.



10.        Same is the case with accused Dattu, against

whom the allegations of tearing clothes are levelled by the

appellant/victim.   However, it has already come on record

that those clothes were in fact seized after about two months.

There is no explanation on record as to why those clothes

were not seized immediately. As such, considering all these

facts, it is clearly apparent that the prosecution case is highly

doubtful and the evidence on record is not convincing to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The plea of alibi raised by accused Dattu and Swapnil about

their absence on the place of incident at the relevant time

appears convincing in the light of defence evidence. There is

no explanation about the injury sustained by the accused-
                              (9)
                                           Cri. Appeal 538-2024 .odt
Piraji. The mother of the victim has also deposed contrary to

the case of prosecution and the evidence of the victim itself is

not convincing at all. The learned Trial Judge, by considering

the evidence on record, has therefore, rightly come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, we

do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned

judgment. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                              JUDGE


Y.S. Kulkarni