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 2026:BHC-AUG:42918 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