You are on page 1of 20

1

 RCC No. 125/2014

RECEIVED ON     :  11/04/2014
REGISTERED ON :  17/04/2014
                                                       DECIDED ON   : 23/11/2018
                                                         DURATION ON   :  Y      M     D
    04     07   12 
 
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
BARAMATI, DIST­ PUNE 
(PRESIDED OVER BY A.J. BACHULKAR)    
(CNR NO. MHPU160017122014)
                                              Regular Criminal Case No.125/2014
                        Exhibit No. 43                              

State of Maharashtra, ]
Through,                                                       ]
Police Station Officer, ]
Baramati City Police Station ]
Tal.   Baramati,   Dist­   Pune                                 ]           .…   Prosecution.
                                     
Versus
1.  Vikas Hanumant Londhe       ]

    Age 25 years, Occ­ Business ]
   R/o Prabudh Nagar, Aamrai, ] 
  Tal­ Baramati, Dist­ Pune                                ]      
2
 RCC No. 125/2014

2.   Yuvraj Salim Gaikawad ]
      Age 21 years, Occ­ Labour ]
      R/o Prabudh Nagar, Aamrai, ] 
      Tal­ Baramati, Dist­ Pune. ]   ….        Accused. 

Charge :­ Offence punishable Under Section 326, 323, 427,504 
and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Shri.S.S.Shaikh                 : APP for the State
Shri.A.M.Kale                   : Advocate for Accused

J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on )

                 The accused are facing trial for offences punishable
under sections 323, 326, 427, 504 and 506 r/w sec 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short 'I.P.C.').

2. The Case of prosecution in brief is as under:­

         It is the case of prosecution that, on 05/10/2013 at about
8.00 pm, the informant Chandrkant Laxman Dhanrale was doing his
business of selling peanuts on his handcart in front of Sharad Pawar
Udyog   Bhavan.   At   that   time   Vikas   Shinde   and   Yuvraj   came   at   his
handcart and they purchased peanuts of five rupees. The informant
asked for its price. At that time Vikas Shinde and Yuvraj   started to
3
 RCC No. 125/2014

abuse and intimidate him. The informant told them not to abuse him.
At   that   time   they   both   hit   him   by   bamboo   stick   on   his   left   hand,
shoulder, metacarpal finger and his head. Thereafter they overturned
the hand cart of the informant and caused the loss of his peanuts. And
they intimidate the informant if he will park his handcart there again
they   will   kill   him.  Therefore   the   informant   lodged   FIR   against   the
accused.                   
                            
3. On   the   basis   of   said   report,   crime   No.302/2013   was
registered   against   the   accused.   The   investigation   conducted   by
P.V.Darade of Baramati City Police Station. He proceeded towards the
place   of   incident   and   prepared   spot   panchnama.   He   recorded
statements of witnesses and seized the  weapons used in the  crime.
After     completion   of   investigation   he   submitted   final   report   under
section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused.
  
4.         Charge   was   framed     against   accused  vide   (Exh.   36)   for
offences punishable under section 323, 326, 427, 504 and 506 r/w sec
34   of   the     Indian   Penal   Code   to   which   they   pleaded   not   guilty
(Exh.10) and claimed to be tried.

5. In   order   to   substantiate   the   guilt   of   the   accused   the


prosecution has examined  in all  6 witnesses, i.e.:­
1)  Chandrakant Laxman Dhanrale(PW1), informant (Exh.16).
2)  Nilesh Laxman Dhanrale(PW2), brother of the informant(Exh.19).
3)   Dr. Nilesh Vijay Naigaonkar(PW3), Medical officer  (Exh.19)
4)  Rajendra Maruti Pise (PW4), Pancha witness (Exh.21).
4
 RCC No. 125/2014

5)  Amol Ganpat Pawar(PW5), Pancha witness (Exh.27).
6)P.V. Darade (PW 6), Investigating officer (Exh 31).
7) Dr. Gokul Kale (PW7), Medical Officer(Exh.37)

6. In documentary evidence prosecution has relied upon

1.   F.I.R. at Exh.17 dated 06/10/2013,

2.   Spot Panchnama at Exh 33

3.   Medical certificate of the informant  at Exh.20 and 38

4.  Seizure  Panchnama  at Exh 33

7. After   recording   the   prosecution   evidence   the   statement


under   section   313(1)(b)   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   are
recorded at Exh.39 and 40. The defence of the accused appears from
his statement under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and
from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses is that of total
denial and false implication.
                                                                                            
8.               Heard the learned A.P.P. Mr.S.S.Shaikh and Mr.A.M.Kale 
Learned Advocate for the accused.  Points arise for my determination 
along with my findings and reasons thereto are as under :­

Sr. No. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION FINDING

   1. Is   it   proved   by   the   prosecution   that,   on


05/10/2013   at   about   8.00   pm   in   the
vicinity   of   Baramati,   Opp.   Sharad   Pawar
Udyogbhavan, Baramati accused  No. 1 and
2 in furtherance of their common intention
voluntarily   caused   grievous   hurt   to
5
 RCC No. 125/2014

informant by means of stick ?            No.

2. Is it proved that, the accused  on abovesaid
date, time and place accused No. 1 and 2 in
furtherance   of   their   common   intention
voluntary caused  hurt to the informant?           No.

3. Is it further proved by the prosecution  that,
the   accused   intentionally   insulted   the
informant by abusing and thereby gave him
provocation   which   would   likely   to   cause
breach of public peace?        No.

4. Is it proved by the prosecution accused No.
1 and 2 committed the offence of criminal
intimidation   by   threatening   the   informant
       No.
with intent to cause alarm to them?

5. Is it proved by the prosecution that accused
No. 1 And 2  overturned the handcart of the
informant and caused loss to the informant
and   thereby   committed   an   offence
punishable under section 427 of the  indian
Penal Code ?        No.

6. What order ? Accused are 
acquitted.

REASONS
9.                  It is argued by the learned APP that the the prosecution
has proved its case. The informant has stated about the incident. The
evidence   of   informant   is   corroborated   by   evidence   of   witnesses.
Further the spot of the incident is proved. Hence, accused deserves to
be convicted.   Whereas  it is argued by the learned advocate  for the
6
 RCC No. 125/2014

accused that   it is a case of mistaken identity. In FIR   names   of the


culprits   are   different   and   chargesheet   is   filed   against   different
persons. The accused are falsely implicated in the offence.  Hence, he
prayed for acquittal of the accused.

 As to point no. 1  to 2 :­
                            
10.   Both of these   offences are alleged to be committed in a
series of transaction. All alleged incidents are corelated to each other.
So   to   avoid   repetition,   I   would   like   to   discuss   points   No   1   and   2
together.

11.             It is alleged that, the accused No. 1 and 2 has committed
an offence under sec. 323, 326 r/w section  34 of the IPC. In order to
prove an offence under sec. 326 of the IPC the prosecution is required
to prove:­
i)   That   the   accused   caused   by   his   act   grievous   hurt   to   the
informant.
ii) That he did such act intentionally or with knowledge that it  
would cause grievous hurt ,
iii)   That   hurt   has  been   caused  by  means  of  weapon   which  is
likely to cause death,
iv) That such act has been comitted wihout any provocation.

12.            In order to prove this fact the prosecution has examined
informant   Chandrakant  Laxman  Dhanrale  (PW1).   He  deposed that
the incident took place on 05/10/2013 at 8.00 pm at his handcart in
front of Sharad Powar Udyogbhavan. At that time Vikas Londhe and
7
 RCC No. 125/2014

Yuvraj Gaikwad came there and they purchased peanuts of Rs.5 and
they told him that they dont have money. The compainant told them
that it is a time of evening therefore he asked money from them. At
that   time   the   accused   abused   him   and   slapped   him.   They   hit   the
informant   on  his  left  metacarpal,    shoulder,hand and head. Due to
which the informant felt unconscious. He was taken to the hospital of
Dr. Gokul Kale. When he become conscious the police recorded report.
The informant proved report at exh. 17. He also identified the bamboo
stick at article 'A' and 'B'.

13. The   informant   admitted   in   his   cross   examination   that,


Vikas Londhe and Yuvraj used to come at his handcart many times
and  he acquainted with them from one and half  years. The informant
further stated that the accused persons live  in Amrai which is near
from his handcart. He further stated that prior to the incident Vikas
Londhe came at his handcart 5 to 6 times.  He further stated the sticks
by which hurt was inflicted to him were lying near to his handcart. He
gave those sticks to the police. He further admitted that he told to
police that   Vikas Shinde assaulted him. He further stated that Vikas
Shinde is also his customer. Vikas Shinde came at his handcart 2 to 3
times.   He   further   stated   that   the   incident   lasted   10   to   15   minutes
thereafter  his brother  came. Thereafter his brother  took him to the
hospital.  He further stated that he become  conscious after two and
half hour. He further stated that he told to the police that the said
incident took place with Vikas Shinde and Yuvraj. He further stated
that, he told police that Vikas Londhe and Yuvraj Gaikawad came at
his handcart. But he dont know why said fact is not written in his FIR. 
8
 RCC No. 125/2014

14. The prosecution further relied upon the testimny of Nilesh
(PW.2)   a   brother   of   the   informant.   He   deposed   that   the   alleged
incident took place on 5/10/2013 at about 8.00 to 8.30 pm near the
bus stand. At that time he received phone call from Vicky Sable. Vicky
Sable   told   him     that   some   persons   are   assaulting   to   his   brother.
Thereafter he proceeded  towards spot of incident.  At that time Vicky
Lokhade   and   Yuvaraj   were   leaving   the   spot   after   assaulting   his
brother. There was fracture to his brother's metacarpal finger and he
sustained   injury   to   his   hand,   shoulder   and   head.   He   took   the
informant to police station and thereafter to government hospital. The
doctors in governmet hospital referred him to Dr.Gokul Kale's hospital.
Doctor operated his metacarpal finger. He identified sticks.

15. In   his   cross   examination   he   admitted   that   when   he


reached   on   the   spot   the   informant   sat   there   injured   position.   He
further admitted that the informant told him that he received injuries
in assault by sticks. He further admitted  that his earlier statement that
he had seen Vicky and Yuvaraj  were leaving the spot of incident and
he had seen bamboo sticks, he is deposing  first time in the court. He
further admitted that while his brother was selling peanuts accused
no.1 and 2 purchased peanuts of Rs.5 and they dont paid money and
they   assaulted   the   informant   this   fact   he   came   to   know   from   his
brother.   The very instance of close relationship of the witness with
the   informant   sounds   a   ring   of   caution   while   appreciating   his
evidence. Further this witness being a hearsay witness his tesimony is
of no use to the prosecution. 
9
 RCC No. 125/2014

 
16. The   prosecution   also   examined   Dr.   Nilesh   Naigaonkar
(exh.19).  He deposed that on 05/10/2013 the informant had been to
Silver   Jubilee   Hospital.   He   examined   the   informant   and   found   i)
abrasion over right thumb 1/2 x 1/2 cm, ii)contusion   over left TM
Joint 3x 5 cm, oval shaped, iii) the informant was complaining pain
over back, iv) swelling was present on dorsal aspect of left hand 5th
metacarpal bone, v) Contusion with abrasion present on the top left
shoulder 7x3 cm redish in colour. He further stated that he treated
patient and accordingly issued injury certificate. He further stated that
injuries No.1 to 5 are possible by assault with sticks at article 'A' and
'B'.   He   further   stated   that   he   referred   the   informant   to   Orthopedic
Surgeon for forth injury.

17. In his cross examination he admitted that history of assault
is not mentioned in the injury certificate. He further admitteded that if
sombody assaults  on the back of person with stick, it may give rise to
wheel   marks.   He   further  admitted that  patient  was not  having any
wheel mark on his body.  

18. The   prosecution   also   examined   Dr.   Gokul   Kale.   He


deposed that on 5/10/2013 a patient by name Chandrakant Laxman
Dhanrale was referred to him by silver Jubilee hospital. He examined
the patient and found multiple abrasion,bruises over his person and
frature to left metacarpal bone. He proved injury certificate at exh.38.
In his cross examination he admitted that injured did not disclose him
10
 RCC No. 125/2014

the history of assault. He further admitted that he did not bring ex­ray
report of injured with him.

19.         Considering the evidence of all these witnesses together the
infomant (PW1) stated that accused slapped him and they hit bamboo
stick on his metacarpal finger,shoulder, hands and head. Nilesh (PW2)
deposed when he reached at spot accused were leaving the spot and
the informant sustained  fracture  to his metacarpal bone and injury to
his hand, shoulder and head. Dr. Naigaonkar (PW3) deposed that he
found abrasion over right thumb, contusion over left T.M., swelling
was present on left hand 5th metacarpal bone, contusion with abrasion
on   left   shoulder.   Dr.   Gokul   kale   (PW7)   also   deposed   that   the
informant   had   multiple   abrasion   and   bruises   over   his   person   and
fracture of left metacarpal bone. Considering  the evidence of all these
witnesses, medical evidence corroborate the version of the informant.
Therefore it is proved  that the complainant  has sustained injuries to
his hand, shoulder and head.  

20. Now, the question before me whether accused persons are
responsible for the injuries inflicted to the informant. On this point it
is argued by the learned defence counsel that, the present   case   is
about mistaken identity. In present case FIR is lodged against Vikas
Shinde and Yuvaraj but the chargesheet is filed against Vikas Londhe
and Yuvraj Gaikawad. The informant testified that Vikas Londhe and
Yuvraj Gaikawad beaten him. Nilesh (PW 2) testified that when he
reached at the spot he saw Vicky Lokhande and Yuvraj were leaving
the   spot   after   beating   his   brother.   It   is   further   argued   that   the
11
 RCC No. 125/2014

investigating officer admitted that, he has not conducted identification
parade of the accused persons in order to assertain whether accused
persons are same persons who beat the informant or not. Therefore it
is   argued   by   the   learned   defence   counsel   that     accused   are   falsely
implicated   in   the   crime.   The   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   that
accused persons and culprits of crime mentioned in the FIR are same.
Therefore it is prayed that accused are entitled to be acquitted.

21. On   this   point   the   learned   defence   counsel     relied   upon


Mushtaq Ahmed Ismail kadari Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 ALL MR
(CRI) 1882 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that, the
prosecution has failed to establish that the appeallant and Mushtaq
Sayyed   mentioned   in   the   dying   declarations   is   one   and   the   same
persons. This is a case of mistaken identity. The prosecution has failed
to prove that the appelant is the preparator of the crime. The accused
be released immediately.

22.              He furher relied upon State of Maharashtra Vs. Namdeo @
Nenaya koyappa Bansode and Another,1975U.C.R.(BOM) 78, wherein
it   has   been   held   that,   no   evidence   to   show   that   nick   name   of   the
accused Namdeo was Nenaya or nickname of accused Pundalik was
Pandalaya. It can not be said that accused namdeo and Pundlik were
the pesons named in first information report by the informant. Identity
of these persons is not established. It can not be held that these two
persons were amongst others who had committed decoity.
12
 RCC No. 125/2014

23. In     Radhesham   Govardhan   Bhagat   Vs.   State   of


Maharashtra, 2000 ALL MR (CRI) 62  Wherein Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay   held   that,   in   absence   of   test   of   identificaion   parade,   the
prosecution case comes under the shadow of doubt. There is a case of
mistaken identity of appelant accused.  If injured witness Almunbi was
very much sure about the name of the accused , she would not have
conveyed two different names of the assailant to different persons.

24.            I have gone through FIR, other documents on record and
testimony of witnesses.  The FIR is lodged against  one Vikas Shinde
and Yuvaraj. On the perusal of FIR at Exh17, it is mentioned therein
that on 5/10/2013 at 8.00 pm he was selling peanuts on his hand
cart. At that time Vikas Shinde and Yuvraj came at his hand cart to
purchase   peanuts.   But   in   chief   examination   he   deposed   that   on
5/10/2013 at 8.00 pm Vikas Londhe and Yuvraj Gaikawad came at his
handcart   to   purchase   peanuts.   Searching   his   cross   examination   he
admitted that, he personally know Vikas Londhe and Yuvraj Gaikawad
from last two years. He further admitted prior to the incident Vikas
Londhe came at his handcart 5 to 6 times.  He further admitted that
he stated to police Vikas Shinde had beaten him. He further admitted
that Vikas Shinde was also his customer. Considering the testimony of
informant he acquainted with both Vikas Londhe and Vikas Shinde.  In
such circumstances  there is no reason given by him why the FIR was
lodged against Vikas Shinde.  The informant has not throw light why
name of person other than accused is mentioned in the FIR, whether it
has been written mistakenly or whether he was not aware with the
names of accused. In the absence of any such clarification on the part
13
 RCC No. 125/2014

of informant, it causes fatal to the prosecution case. Further full name
of accused No.2 is not mentioned in the FIR. The informant admitted
he   is   acquainted   with   both   the   accused.   Then   why   he   has   not
mentioned full name of the accused No.2. He did not mentioned into
his   testimony   that   he   was   unaware   of   his   surname   at   the   time   of
lodging  FIR.   Further it  is nowhere mentioned in  his testimony that
Yuvraj   mentioned   in   FIR   and   accused   Yuvraj   Gaikawad   is   same
person. When the informant has admitted that he is acquainted with
both the accused and where no reason is given for lodging FIR  against
two different persons in such circumstances it creates doubt about a
credibility of the informant.

25. On   this   point     learned   defence   counsel   forcefully


submitted   that   the   investigating   officer   ought   to   have   held
identification   parade   and   because   of   failure   to   hold   identification
parade the prosecution story suffers from serious doubt. On this point
he relied upon Jadunath Singh Vs. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1971 SC page
102)  wherein  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  has held that failure  to hold
identification of accused is not fatal in all cases. If the accused is well
known to the prosecution witnesses, it would be waste of time to put
him for identification. If, however, there is any doubt in the matter,
the prosecution should hold identification parade.

26. P.V.Darade (PW6) an investigaing officer admitted in his
cross examination that in fIR at exh 17 is lodged against Vikas Shinde
and   Yuvraj.   He   further   admitted   that   he   has   not   conducted
identification   parade   in   order   to assertain   whether  accused persons
14
 RCC No. 125/2014

and     persons   who   beat   the   informant   are   same   or   not.   He   further
admitted that he has not produced any evidence in the court to prove
that Vikas Shinde a person beating to the informant and accused are
same persons.

27.              In the present case, FIR is lodged against Vikas Shinde and
Yuvraj.   But   after   investigation   chargesheet   was   filed   against   Vikas
Londhe and Yuvraj Gaikawad.  Investigating officer had not disclosed
how he came to the conclusion that, accused were responsible for the
offence.   In   such   circumstances   identification   of   the   accused   by
informant was necessary in order to assure that the investigation is
proceeding in right lines in addition to furnishing corrobaration of the
evidence to be given by the witnesses later in the court at trial. In such
circumstances failure on the part of the investigating officer to coduct
identification parade goes to the root of proecution case.
                        
28.             Considering the evidence of all witnesses,   the informant is
acquainted with both accused and also acquainted with Vikas Shinde
and   Yuvraj   mentioned   in   FIR.     If   informant   was   acquainted   with
accused since 2 years. Then  there should be some satisfactory reason
why  name of wrong persons is mentioned in the FIR.  But  there is no
clarification given either by informant or by investigating officer as to
why wrong names  of the culprits is mentioned in FIR.  The evidence
of the informant is not cogent, satisfactory and reliable. Further in the
case of doubt, the prosecution should have hold identification parade
of   the   accused.   But   failure   on   the   part   of   the   prosecution   to   hold
identification parade fatal to the prosecution case.
15
 RCC No. 125/2014

29. The spot of incident situated near Bus stand. The defence
has   brought   more   details   of   surroundings   of   the   place   of   incident
through cross examination. It appears that, the place   of incident is
thickly populated area. In the circumstances, naturally question arise
as to why prosecution has not examined any witness of the locality
whose presence can not be doubted. Any shop owner or other hawkers
would be the natural witness to the incident. As there presence at the
spot   is   free   fom   suspician.   Always   it   depends   upon   circumstances,
whether there was an opportunity for incident having been seen by
the independent witness.

30. As  per  the  prosecution  case incident took  place  at open


place.   Therefore,   there   may   be   possibility   regarding   availability   of
independant witnesses. Moreover the informant admitted that at the
time of incident there gathered 20 to 25 people. In present case names
of culprits of the offence are different than persons  chargesheeted. In
such   circumstances   the   investiating   officer   should   have   record   the
statements of person in the locality in order to establish the identity of
accused.   They   would   have   been   able   to   throw   some   light   as   to
whether   accused   are   same   persons   who   beat   the   informant.   But
prosecution   failed   to   examine   any   reliable   independent   witnesses.
The prosecution has not brought any evidence on the record to prove
that persons beating the informant and accused are same persons.

31.               The prosecution also examined panch witnesses Rajendra
(PW4)   who   happens   to   be   seizure   panch   and   Amol   (PW5)   who
16
 RCC No. 125/2014

happens   to   be   spot   panch.   Unfortunate   to   the   prosecution   these


witnesses   turns   hostile   to   the   prosecution.   The   prosecution   proved
spot and seizure panchnama at exh 32 and 33 respectively through
investigating   officer,   P.V.Darade   (PW6).   On   perusal   of   seizure
panchnama   at   exh.33,   it   is   mentioned   therein   that,   seized   weapon
were produced by accused No.1. But here it is pertinent to note that
the informant deposed that sticks by which hurt was inflicted to the
informant were lying at the spot and the informant gave those sticks
to the police. Considering the admission by the informant that he had
given   those   sticks   to   the   police,    it   is  revealed  that     sticks  are  not
seized at the instance of accused.
                
32.              As   a   cluster   of   above   discussion,   in   present   matter   the
prosecution has failed to establish that the accused and persons who
beat   the   informant   are   the  same   persons.   There   is   no   independant
corroboration to the informant's version. Further identification parade
of the accused is not conducted by police in order to satisfy whether
culprits mentioned in the FIR and accused charegesheeted are same
persons. The prosecution has not given any satisfactory reason as to
the change in name of accused persons in FIR.  Further seizure of the
weapon from the custody of the accused is not proved. Thus evidence
of prosecution witnesses is neither satisfactory nor sufficient hold that
accused beat informant (PW1). As a result, I hold that, the prosecution
has failed to prove that   the  accused have voluntarily caused hurt or
grievous hurt to the informant. Hence, I answer point No.1 and 2 in
the negative.
17
 RCC No. 125/2014

                  Point No. 3 :

33.               As   per   prosecution   case,   the   accused   have   abused   the


informant   intentionally   to   insult   him.   As   a   matter   of   fact,   neither
informant  nor the witneses deposed as to what were the actual abuses
and   how   they   were   provoked   to   break   public   peace.     In   order   to
establish an offence punishable under secion 504 of he Indian Penal
Code, the abusive words have to be specifically quoted by the informnt
and  witnesses. In present cast there is no such sort  of evidence on
record. Therefore I hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove that
the   accused   intentionally   insulted   the   informant   with   a   view   to
provoke  to  breach public  peace. Hence, I answer point No.3 in the
negative.

              Point No.4:

34.         The accused persons are charged for the offence punishable
under section   506 read with section 34 of the IPC.   The informant
deposed that accused No. 1 and 2 threatened him that, if he will again
park his handcart there, they will kill him. But at which instances the
accused   persons   threatened   to   the   informant   are   under   clouds   of
doubt.   The   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   beating   to   the
informant.   The   act   of     threatning   can   not   be   read   seperately   from
alleged act of beating. Therefore I hold that, the prosecution has failed
to   prove   that   the   accused   threatened   informant   with   intent   cause
alarm. Hence, I answer point No.3 in the negative.
18
 RCC No. 125/2014

                 Point No.5:

35.            It is alleged by the prosecution that, the accused overturned
the handcart of the informant because of which peanuts kept on the
handcart   were   spread   all   over   the   road.   Considering   evidence
discussed above, the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of
the accused in connection with present offence. Therefore, I answer
point No.5 in the negative.

36.                   As a cluster of above discussion, the proscution failed to
establish the identity of the accused in relation to crime.  There is no
independant   corroboration   to   the   informant's   version.  Further   it   is
alleged   that   offence   was   committed   thickly   populated   area.   But
prosecution   failed   to   examine   any   independant   witness.   The
prosecution   has   not   produced   any   cogent,   satisfactory   and   reliable
evidence . All these things creates doubt in the prosecution version.     

37.                      In the result, I hold that prosecution failed  to establish
alleged offence to rope accused in connection with charged crime. The
wooden   stick   is   worthless.   Hence,   deserved   to   be   destroyed   after
appeal period. As a result the accused is entitled to be acquitted. In
the result in order to answer this point, I pass fllowing order.

                                               ORDER
1.     The accused Vikas Hanumant Londhe and Yuvraj SalimGaikawad
are acquitted vide section 248(2) for the offence   punishable   under
section 323, 326, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
19
 RCC No. 125/2014

2.   His   bailbonds stands cancelled.
3.   Seized   property   two   wooden   sticks   (Article   A   and   B)   be
destroyed after appeal period is over.
4.       The   accused   is   directed   execute   P.R.bond   of   Rs.15,000/­with
surety of like amount to appear before the Appelate  Court as an when
required, in view of section 437­A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

                                          Sd/­
Date : 23­11­2018               ( A.J. Bachulkar )
9th Judicial Magistrate First Class,  
       Baramati.

“ I affirm that the contents of this P. D.F. file Order are same word for
word as per original Order. 

Name of Steno  :  Patil M. M. 

Court Name  : 9th  Jt. CJJD & JMFC, Baramati

Date  : 23­11­2018

Order signed by 
presiding officer on  :  21­12­2018

Order uploaded on  : 21­12­2018.” 
20
 RCC No. 125/2014

You might also like