HIMMAT NAMDEO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:9063-DB
                                              (1)    Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2025


                        Himmat s/o Namdev Patil,
                        Age : 56 years, Occ : Agriculture,
                        R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
                        Drstrict : Jalgaon                       ….        APPELLANT


                        VERSUS


                1]      The State of Maharashtra
                2]      Sambhaji s/o Govinda Patil
                        Age : 41 years, Occ : Agri
                        R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
                        District : Jalgaon
                3]      Vilas s/o Shantaram Sonwane
                        Age : 33 years, Occ : Rickshaw Driver,
                        R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
                        District : ,Jalgaon
                4]      Pravin /o Shantaram Sonwane
                        Age : 27 years, Occ : Business
                        R/o : Kusumba, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon
                5]      Kailas s/o Sitaram Sonwane
                        Age 36 years, Occ : Agriculture
                        R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
                        District : Jalgaon.
                6]      Ravindra @ Bhurya Shantaram Sonwane
                        Age 28 years, Occ : Agri
                            (2)    Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon.
7]    Manohar @ Balu Pundalik Pati1
      Age : 30 years, Occ : Agri
      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon.
8]    Shantaram s/o Supdu Sonwane,
      Age : 36 years, Occ : Agri
      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon.
9]    Raju s/o Shantaram Sonwane
      Age 22 years, Occ : Agri
      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon.
10]   Yeshwant s/o Pundalik Patil
      Age : 35 years, Occ : Agriculture,
      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon.
11]   Dattu s/o Sitaram Sonwane
      Age : 25 years, Occ : Agri
      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon
12]   Kiran s/o Ajabsing Sonwane,
      Age 35 years, Occ : Business
      R/o : Kusumba, Taluka and
      District : Jalgaon.                      ….        RESPONDENTS
                            (Respondent Nos.2 to 12 are Original
                             Accused No.1 to 4 & 7 to 13)
                         (3)    Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt




                               ….
     Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. Amol N. Kakade
     A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. M. A. Aher
                               …..
                CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                        ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                      RESERVED ON : 13/01/2026
                      PRONOUNCED ON : 27/02/2026


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


1.   The appellant, Himmat Namdeo Patil, who is the
informant, has challenged the acquittal of the present
respondent Nos.2 to 12, who are the original accused Nos.1 to
4 & 7 to 13 in Sessions Case No.9 of 2016 for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, and 325
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded
by the learned Sessions Judge, Julgaon (hereinafter referred
to as the “learned Trial Judge”), vide judgment and order
dated 10.07.2025 in the aforesaid case.


2.   As per the prosecution case, on 14.02.2010 at about
9.00 p.m., Chandrakant Patil and Mayur Patil were returning
home from Kusumba Bus Stand.                     At that time, the
respondents/accused allegedly came there and on account of
their defeat in the election, started assaulting them with
sticks, an iron rod, an axe, and a sword.                     The present
informant, Himmat, along with one Nilesh Shivraj Patil, tried
to intervene; however, accused Sambhaji and the other
                          (4)   Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



accused assaulted Chandrakant Patil on his head. Similarly,
Nilesh was also assaulted on his head and sustained serious
injuries. Thereafter, the informant Himmat, with the help of
villagers namely Pintu Vitthal, Sandip Nawal, Sanjay Pundlik,
etc., escorted his nephews Chandrakant, Mayur and Nilesh to
the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon.

     On the basis of the report of the incident lodged at the
concerned police station, an offence was registered against all
the respondents/accused vide C.R. No. 31 of 2010.                      Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed
against the respondents/accused for the aforesaid offences.
However, they raised a defence of false implication, contending
that the present case was a counterblast to the case filed by
them against the informant and others.


3.   The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
argued that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the
evidence in its proper perspective and ignored the testimony
of the eye witnesses as well as the injured witnesses, despite
there being consistency on material aspects. He pointed out
that, though certain weapons were recovered at the instance
of the accused, the learned Trial Judge declined to place
reliance on the said recoveries.      He further submitted that
the accused cannot be given the benefit merely on account of
a defective or faulty investigation.             In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and
others v. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920.


4.   With the able assistance of learned counsel for the
                              (5)   Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



appellant as well as learned APP for respondent-State, we
have gone through the evidence of witnesses as well as the
impugned judgment.


5.   Admittedly, in the present case there are eye witnesses
as well as injured witnesses who have deposed before the
Court   regarding     the      alleged      criminal          acts         of   the
respondents/accused.            However, upon perusal of the
impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge
has acquitted the respondents/accused primarily on the
ground that the ocular evidence was inconsistent with the
medical evidence on record and that there were material
discrepancies between the testimonies of the eye witnesses
and the injured witnesses. Even the evidence of the approver,
Shrawan Koli (PW-1), was not found to be reliable.


6.   On examining the notes of evidence as well as the
impugned judgment, it appears that there are material
variances and contradictions in the testimonies of the
informant,   the    injured     eyewitnesses          and      the         approver
Shrawan Koli. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapons
allegedly used in the commission of the offence was effected
from open places accessible to all, thereby casting doubt on
the prosecution’s case.


7.   The evidence of the approver, Shrawan Koli, is not
corroborated by any independent witness. According to him,
the place of occurrence was crowded. The auto-rickshaw by
which Chandrakant (PW-5) and Mayur (PW-6) had arrived at
the spot was present during the incident; however, the
                            (6)     Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



prosecution failed to examine the said rickshaw driver.
Further, there are several contradictions in the testimonies of
the eyewitnesses. Injured witness Chandrakant has also
made exaggerated and self-contradictory statements. Though
he initially stated that he and his brother Mayur were
proceeding towards their house from Kusumba Bus Stop, but
he subsequently stated that the incident occurred at the bus
stop itself.


8.    On the other hand, injured Mayur (PW-6) stated that no
one became unconscious during the incident, which appears
to   be   contrary   to   the     prosecution        case.       As        per   the
prosecution, the informant did not sustain any injuries;
however, according to the informant’s version, all three
injured persons were admitted to the Civil Hospital in an
unconscious condition. Moreover, he did not utter a word
about the admission of his brother Chandrakant to Shripad
Hospital. The informant has also admitted that a report was
lodged against him and others at the same MIDC Police
Station alleging that they had assaulted accused Sambhaji
and his brother Shivaji. Thus, it appears that there has been
suppression of material facts on the part of the complainant.


9.    As per the testimony of the approver, Shrawan Koli, the
respondents/accused assaulted Chandrakant and Mayur
with bamboo sticks, an iron rod, an axe and a sword. He
specifically stated that accused No. 1, Sambhaji, assaulted
PW-5 Chandrakant on his head with an axe; accused No. 3,
Kiran, assaulted Chandrakant on his forehead with a sword;
and accused No. 7, Ravindra, also assaulted Chandrakant on
                             (7)     Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



his head with an axe.              Though Chandrakant’s evidence
supports this version to some extent, but the testimony of the
other injured eyewitness, PW-6 Mayur, indicates that accused
No. 7 Ravindra assaulted Chandrakant with an axe, while the
other accused assaulted him with sticks. Further, according
to the third injured witness, Nilesh (PW-7), after Chandrakant
was assaulted by accused No. 7 Ravindra, accused No. 1
Sambhaji and accused No. 13 Kiran assaulted Chandrakant
with iron rods.       Thus, there are material inconsistencies in
the versions of these key witnesses regarding the specific
weapons used and the manner in which the injured persons
were assaulted by the accused.


10.    It is further evident that the medical evidence on record
does    not   fully   corroborate     the      ocular       version         of   the
prosecution witnesses.       Moreover, except for witness Nilesh,
none of the injured witnesses has specifically stated which
particular weapon was used to cause the respective injuries.
It is significant to note that Dr. Rajesh Jain (PW-9), in his
cross-examination, admitted that he issued the injury
certificate (Exhibit-208) after a lapse of 12 years and 6
months. The prosecution has offered no explanation for such
an inordinate delay.       Further, according to Dr. Pankaj (PW-
10), injured Chandrakant had sustained a C-shaped contused
lacerated wound (CLW) on the occipital region. However, no
curved weapon capable of causing such an injury was
recovered from the accused. It is also pertinent to note that
though the prosecution alleged that the complainant party
was assaulted with a sword, but no such sword was
recovered.    In these circumstances, there appears to be a
                            (8)   Judgment inCri. Appeal 683-2025 .odt



clear inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the
medical evidence on record.


11.    As per the prosecution evidence, several persons had
gathered at the spot of the incident; however, the prosecution
failed to examine any independent witness. According to the
prosecution case, persons namely Pintu Vitthal and Sandip
Nawal had lifted the injured and admitted them to the Civil
Hospital, yet they were not even cited as witnesses in the
charge sheet. In view of these inconsistencies and omissions,
it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial
Judge, after recording these discrepancies and deficiencies on
record, proceeded to acquit the respondents/accused.


12.          It is now settled that, if the acquittal is recorded by
the learned Trial Judge, after considering the evidence on
record, then it cannot be set-aside, merely because another
view is possible. Therefore, considering the scope of appeal
against acquittal, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands
dismissed.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)               (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
     JUDGE                              JUDGE


VS Maind/