THE STATE OF MAHversusDATTATRAYA KONDIRAM SABALE

2026:BHC-AUG:42760


                                                                       CriAppeal-614-2006
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.614 OF 2006

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through PSO Kotwali Police Station,
                 Ahmednagar.                                               .. Appellant

                       Versus

                 Dattatraya Kondiram Sabale
                 Age: 50 years, Occu.: Pensioner,
                 R/o. Municipal Hudco, Ahmednagar.                         .. Respondent

                                                   …
                 Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for Appellant/State.
                 Mr. A. K. Gawali, Advocate for respondent.
                                                   ...

                                                 CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                 Reserved on : 11.09.2026
                                                 Pronounced on : 21.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    State hereby challenges the judgment and order of acquittal

                 dated 02.05.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial            Magistrate,

                 Ahmednagar in Regular Criminal Case No.295 of 2001 acquitting

                 respondent/original accused from charges under Sections 143, 147,

                 323, 427, 451, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code [IPC].


                 2.    Story of prosecution before the trial Court in brief is that son of

                 accused No.1 was brought to the hospital of PW1 with complaint of

                 chest pain and was duly admitted, but said patient died. Father of
                                                     CriAppeal-614-2006
                                   -2-

deceased got upset and he and other relatives created ruckus and

damaged the hospital by forming unlawful assembly. On report to

that extent by doctor, crime was registered. It was investigated and

seven persons were named and duly charge-sheeted and finally tried.

Learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence of six witnesses and

acquitted the accused from all the charges by judgment and order

dated 02.05.2006. Hence, instant appeal by State.


3.       Learned APP reiterated the prosecution case advanced before

the learned Trial Court. He took this Court through the testimony of

the complainant and eye-witness PW2 and submitted that their

evidence has remained intact. He further submitted that these

witnesses had seen the accused inside the hospital. There was also

obstruction caused to the police authorities, and these witnesses have

deposed against such act of the accused. According to him, all the

essential ingredients for proving the offences are borne out from the

prosecution evidence. However, the learned Trial Court acquitted the

accused by misreading the evidence on record. Hence, he urges that

the appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and

order.


4.       Learned Counsel for the respondent would justify the judgment

and order of trial Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal for want of
                                                     CriAppeal-614-2006
                                  -3-

merits.


5.    Re-appreciated the entire evidence. Complainant PW1, in his

evidence at Exhibit-58, deposed about the incident dated 01.09.2001.

He stated that at about 4.00 p.m., a patient was brought with severe

chest pain. The patient was examined, and the father of the patient

was explained about the serious condition of the patient. Thereafter,

when the father agreed, accordingly, the patient was admitted. That,

one cardiologist being summoned, but the patient to be expired

around 5.50 p.m. and after the patient was declared dead, it is stated

that father of the deceased levelled accusations of delay in treatment

and relatives and crowd gathered there and therefore, the

complainant informed the police authorities. That, while he was at

S.P. office and waiting in L.C.B Branch, he learnt from his friends Dr.

Dhoot and Dr. Somani about damage being caused to the hospital as

well as vehicle. He claims that his staff Asif Pathan told him that

Dattatray Sable and 7-8 persons had beaten him, manhandled a

nurse, abused the receptionist and, therefore, report to that extent

being lodged.

.     This witness, in paragraph No.9 of his cross-examination,

admitted that people, who were present at the hospital, had told him

about the damage and he accordingly narrated it to the police. He
                                                      CriAppeal-614-2006
                                  -4-

admitted that he was not beaten that day. According to him 300 to

400 people gathered at the hospital. He claims to have seen people

pelting stones at the hospital. He admitted that he did not mention

the name of accused in the complaint. He admitted that he made

inquiry with the staff prior to filing of complaint. He admitted that he

cannot give names of accused or their residence.


6.    PW2 is the receptionist and, in her evidence at Exhibit-72,

stated that while treatment was being given to the patient, namely,

Shankar Sable, he died at about 5.15 p.m. When the death was

informed to the relatives of the patient, they started pelting stones at

the hospital from outside. Out of fright, she went to the doctor's

house, which is situated at the backside of the hospital. The relatives

of the deceased patient caused damage to the hospital.

.     In paragraph No.3 of her cross-examination, she admitted that

a huge mob had gathered and that she did not know anybody from

the said mob. As she had gone inside, she did not know what had

happened outside the hospital. She had no document to show that she

was employed at the hospital.

7.    PW3 is the spot panch.

8.    PW4 is the doctor, who treated persons, namely, Dinkar Yenare

and Dnyandeo Gajare and issued injury certificates at Exhibit-87 and
                                                      CriAppeal-614-2006
                                  -5-

Exhibit-88.


9.    These two injured witnesses i.e. Dinkar and Dnyandeo are

examined as PW5 and PW6. They appear to be police personnel who

arrived at the hospital upon receipt of a wireless message while they

were on patrolling duty. There, they found the relatives of the

deceased blocking the ambulance and demanding that the doctor be

brought before them. According to them, five to six persons forcibly

entered the hospital, and the mob started pelting stones. When they

were calling for additional force, father of the deceased caught hold

the mike and did not permit them to have a call. He identified

accused No.1 as the father of deceased.

.     In cross-examination, they admitted that there was mob at the

hospital, which was pelting stones. They have admitted that no Test

Identification parade was conducted, even when accused were not

known.


10.   Therefore, in the present case, firstly, the father of the deceased

allegedly questioned the doctor after the demise of his son. However,

the complainant doctor appears to have gone to the S.P. Office for

lodging a complaint after seeing the relatives and the mob gathering

outside his hospital. He is not witness to the events of damage and

who did what. Likewise, receptionist PW2 also seems to be hiding
                                                     CriAppeal-614-2006
                                  -6-

herself in the house of doctor and she was not aware of who did

what. Admittedly, accused persons were not known to either of the

witnesses, including police personnel, who suffered injuries in the

episode of pelting stones by mob. Witness admitted in cross-

examination that accused No.1 did not indulged in pelting stones. He

had merely obstructed PW5 and PW6 from performing their duty. It is

a fairly settled position that, in cases involving rioting by a mob, at

least two witnesses should be consistent in their evidence, however,

in the present case, it is not so. None of the witnesses knew the

accused persons, except accused No.1, however, no overt act has been

attributed to him. Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade was

conducted and, therefore, the identity of the accused persons itself is

under a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the charges cannot be said to

have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, no fault can

be attributed to the learned Trial Court for acquitting the accused

persons. There being no merit in the appeal, it deserves to be

dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed:-

                               ORDER

      .     Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm