1 Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Kurunda, Dist. Parbhani. .. Appellant (Ori. Complainant) VERSUS Namdeo S/o Purbhaji Sarode, Age : 40 Years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Korta, Tq. Basmath, District Hingoli. ..Respondent (Ori. Accused) … A.P.P. for the Appellant-State : Mrs. Bharati B. Gunjal Advocate for the Respondent : None …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 23/01/2026. JUDGMENT : (Per : Sandipkumar C. More, J.) : 1. The appellant, State has challenged the acquittal of present respondent – accused in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2001 vide judgment and order dated 23/07/2003, from the offence under Sections 307, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at the hands of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the learned Trial Judge’’). 2026:BHC-AUG:3445-DB 2 Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003 2. According to the prosecution case, informant – Sanjay Kashinath Sarode and the respondent accused are resident of common locality i.e. Chondi-Amba, Taluka Basmat, District Parbhani in the agricultural land. On 16.07.2001, informant Sanjay went to his agricultural land and asked the respondent and his son Sumit as to why they plucked mangoes from his trees. Thereafter, altercation started between them and son of respondent gave blow of knife on the chest of Sanjay. The respondent also assaulted Sanjay on his head and back with the help of stick and also mother of Sanjay by name Kalavati on her mouth, chest and stomach. Neighbours namely Vinod, Kashinath, Prakash, Gyanoba intervened and resolved the dispute. Sanjay was then admitted to hospital, where his dying declaration Exh. 26 was recorded by P.W.3 P.H.C. Dattatreya Duba and on the basis of it, crime was registered against the respondent and his son under Sections 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, the respondent was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned Trial Judge conducted the trial, but acquitted the respondent/accused from the aforesaid charges. The son of respondent was tried separately, being the juvenile offender. 3 Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003 4. The learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that though their was evidence of both the injured eye witnesses against the respondent about his act of causing grievous hurt, but the learned Trial Judge erroneously discarded the same. However, she fairly admitted that, role of respondent/accused was only in respect of beating those eye witnesses with the help of stick and the stab wound was caused by the juvenile offender. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent remained absent. 6. Since this is an appeal against acquittal, we deem it appropriate to decide the same even in absence of the respondent, as the burden is upon prosecution to establish the guilt of respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Heard learned A.P.P. and also perused the impugned judgment along with the paper book and also record and proceedings of the original case. 8. Admittedly, the stab wound was caused by juvenile offender, who is not before this Court. Therefore, only role of respondent/ accused needs to be taken into consideration to ascertain whether 4 Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003 he is guilty for causing grievous hurt. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Trial Judge has mainly acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the spot and time of the offence were not clearly established, there were major contradictions and inconsistencies found in the testimonies of two injured eye witness namely P.W.1 Sanjay and P.W.2 Kalavati, in respect of sequence of events and the specific assault. No common intention was found between respondent and his son in attempting to commit murder of the informant- Sanjay. The recovery of stick at the instance of respondent was not supported by independent panch witness and the injured witnesses were interested witnesses. 9. On this back ground, if the entire material on record including the evidence is perused, then it appears that the dying declaration Exhibit-26 appears vague and silent on the specific time of the offence and precise location of the incident. So also, the spot panchnama Exhibit-30 also does not provide a clear picture of the scene of the offence. So far as testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the injured eye witnesses, are concerned, it reveals that they had gone to the house of the accused to confront him, which is directly contrary to the prosecution claim that the incident took place in the land of the complainant. 5 Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003 10. Further, there was no evidence of mens-rea and premeditated intention to kill. The incident appears to be caused due to sudden quarrel over a trivial issue of plucking mangoes. Further, there was no common intention apparent from the act of this respondent, since the act of stabbing, from the juvenile son of the respondent, appeared independent. Apart from that, there are contradictions, improvements in the evidence of P.W.1 Sanjay and P.W.2 Kalavati on material aspects. The sequence who went to the spot first, is not properly established. Further, P.W.2 Kalavati did not support the claim that the respondent had assaulted Sanjay on the head with stick. There are inconsistencies in duration of incident and location of neighbouring houses. It was found that P.W.2 Kalavati contradicted her own previous police statement and improved her version before the Court. Further, it has also come on record that her evidence could be treated as that of interested witness, since it has come on record that the respondent had previously stood as witness against Kalavati in another litigation. 11. Further, the medical and scientific evidence on record also does not support the case of the prosecution, since P.W.2 Kalavati had not stated that respondent assaulted Sanjay with stick on his head. Therefore, though injury in the form of contusion was 6 Cri.Appeal No. 682-2003 found on the head of Sanjay, but there was no role of present respondent as per Kalavati. Further, it is claimed by the prosecution that Namdeo bet Kalavati on her mouth, chest and stomach with the help of stick, but surprisingly in the M.L.C of Kalavati, no injuries were found on the aforesaid parts of her body. Therefore, there is inconsistency between the ocular evidence as well as medical evidence. Further, it is clearly evident that the recovery of stick at the instance of Namdeo also appears doubtful, in absence of supporting evidence of panch witnesses. It is extremely important to note that despite there being presence of neighbours namely Vinod, Kashinath, Prakash and Dnyanoba on the spot, none of them was examined as an independent witness. Therefore, all these facts have definitely rendered the case of the prosecution as a doubtful one. 12. In view of the same, we concur with the reasoning of learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts. As such, no interference is required in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. ) Ysk/-