Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah And Ors vs Sharad Ambadas Anbhule And Ors on 24 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:15867
{1} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
(through Karjat Police Station,
District Ahmednagar. ....Appellant
Versus
1. Sharad Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 22 yrs., Occu.:
2. Suman Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 45 yrs.,
3. Parshuram Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 22 yrs., r/o. Ghumari, Tq.Karjat,
District - Ahmednagar. ....Respondents
(Ori. Accused)
.....
APP for Appellant : Mr.S.M.Ganchari
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.B.Rajebhosale
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2005
Santosh s/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 23 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Ghumari, Tq.Karjat,
District Ahmednagar. ....Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Sharad s/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 25 yrs., Occu.: Agril.
2. Suman w/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 48 yrs.,
{2} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
3. Parshuram s/o Ambadas Anbhule
Age: 25 yrs., Occu.: Agril,
All above R/o. Ghumari, Tq.Karjat,
District - Ahmednagar.
4. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondents
(Respondent nos.1 to 3
Ori. accused)
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Z.H.Farooqui h/f. Mr.N.V.Gaware
Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.B.Rajebhosale
APP for Respondent no.4 : Mr.S.M.Ganachari
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 13 JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24 JUNE, 2025
JUDGMENT :
–
1. State hereby takes exception to the judgment and order dated
07-06-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
(JMFC), Karjat, District Ahmednagar, in RTC No.100 of 2002 thereby
acquitting present respondent nos.1 to 3 from charges under Sections
325, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF PROSECUTION CASE
2. On 12-10-2002, Santosh Ambadas Unbhule, his father and
mother were harvesting Bajra crop at around 12:30 Noon. In the
backdrop of objection of grazing cattle taken by informant and his
{3} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
mother to accused nos.1, 2 and 3, accused persons came armed with
sticks. They mounted assault informant and his father, who
sustained injuries. Therefore, informant Santosh lodged report at
Karjat Police Station, District Ahmednagar, giving rise to registration
of crime bearing no.145 of 2002.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and all
three accused persons were made to face trial before the learned
JMFC, Karjat vide RTC No.100 of 2002 wherein prosecution adduced
evidence of in all seven witnesses.
After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and after
hearing both the sides, learned JMFC held that prosecution version
and its evidence is doubtful and thereby extended benefit to the
accused and ultimately acquitted them by above judgment. Precisely
feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, both State as well
as original complainant preferred appeal as well as revision
application respectively.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant State :
3. Learned APP pointed out that here informant PW1 Santosh,
his father PW2 Ambadas were assaulted by accused persons for
{4} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
preventing them from grazing cattle. That, in such backdrop,
accused nos.1, 2 and 3 allegedly came armed with sticks, stones and
they also used chilli powder. According to learned APP, informant
PW1 Santosh and his father PW2 Ambadas as well as his mother PW4
Laxmibai, who was also party to occurrence, have deposed before the
Court narrating the occurrence. That, they all are consistent on
material part of assault and occurrence. That, there was use of sticks
to inflict injury to PW2 Ambadas. That, he was examined by medical
expert. That, such Medical Officer PW6 Dr.Shinde, who examined
and treated PW2 Ambadas has stepped in witness box and he has
deposed regarding treatment given to injured and has also issued
medical certificate. Therefore, according to learned APP, there is
more than convincing and clinching evidence. That, there was eye
witness account, who had seen PW2 Ambadas suffering from injury
and marking presence of accused persons. Therefore, there was
support from independent witness. However, such evidence has not
been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. That,
prosecution case has been disbelieved without assigning proper
reasons. That, articles were seized from the spot. But the learned
trial Judge failed to appreciate the testimonies and also failed to
apply correct law. That, injured witness account has been disbelieved
{5} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
on the grounds of inconsistent evidence, omissions and
contradictions. Therefore, learned APP seeks indulgence by allowing
appeal.
On behalf of accused / respondent nos.1 to 3 :
4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 would submit that
learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence. That,
there was previous enmity. That, the story of informant was not
finding support from his own father and mother. That, he and his
father are not consistent regarding the very occurrence, rendering it
doubtful. That, articles shown to be seized are not proved as Pancha
did not support and therefore, only on medical evidence, case cannot
be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that in
this case, learned trial Judge has extended benefit of doubt and
therefore, for above reasons, he seeks dismissal of appeal.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on the
decisions in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., 2008 ALL MR (cri)
2873 (S.C.); State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Singh, 2004 Cri.L.J.,
4886; Smt.Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana, 2003 Cri.L.J., 2319 and
Mani Ram and others v. State of U.P., 1994 AIR SCW 2298.
{6} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
5. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in
all seven witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as
under :
PW1 Santosh Ambadas Anbhule is informant. At exh.24, he
deposed as under :
“(1) Suman Ambadas Anbule is my step mother. Sharad is my
step brother. So also Parshuram is my step brother. My father
has two wives. My mother is the first wife of my father. 7 acres
of land is recorded in the name of my father, and 7 acres of land
is recorded in my mother. 2 acre land is recorded in my name.
At relevant time of incidence, my step mother and brother were
residing in the field.
(2) The incident occurred prior to about 1 year. Prior two days
of the incident, there were quarrel between myself and my
mother and accused in respect of grass fodder provided to
cattles of other persons. At the time of that quarrel prior to 2-3
days of step mother quarreled with my father. At the time of
incidence, accused persons came in the field which is in the
name of my father, at that time, my father and myself
harvesting bajra crop. Accused persons beat my father and
myself with the help of wooden sticks, stones, and they also
used chilly powder. Because of that my father objected accused
persons, to cultivate the land in the name of my mother with
the help of tractor. Because of that accused no.1 to 3 beat me
and my father with the help of stick. Because of beating given
{7} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
by stick, I sustained bleeding injury on my head. My father was
also beaten by accused persons. Malhari, Chandrabhan Anbhule
came there and pacified the quarrel. My mother was present
there. My step mother caught hold of hairs of my mother,
thrown her on ground, and beat her. After pacifying the quarrel,
accused persons threatened us that they will take revenge
though we are saved this time. After the incidence, I visited
Mirajgaon o/p. of police and lodged complaint against accused
persons.”
PW2 Ambadas Sonaji Anbhule is father of informant. At
exh.26, he deposed as under :
“Incident occurred on 12/10/2002, at about 11.00 a.m. in the
morning. At relevant time, cattles were grazing. Accused no.I
had tied those cattles for the purpose of grazing which were
belonging to Balu Chandrabhan Anbhule. My first wife Laxmi
told accused no.1 to remove those cattles from that place as our
cattles will feed on that grass. Because of that there was scuffle
between Santosh and accused no.1 to 3. I was present to my
home. I was rushed alongwith Hira Ganpat Anbhule on the spot.
Accused no.2 stated that beat us. At that time, I was not beaten.
But later on accused no.1 beat me with the help of stick on my
head in my field, and thrown chilly powder in my eyes. Because
of assault by stick, there was a bleeding Injury on my head.
Accused no.1 caught hold of my private Part and squeezed it.
Accused no.2 beat my first wife Laxmibai at that time.
Then accused no.3 beat Santosh with the help of stick and stone
on his head. At that time Malhari Chandrabhan Annule came
there, pacified quarrel and then took me to PHC Mirajgaon., on
{8} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005motor-cycle. I was referred to Ahmednagar for further
treatment, so I was taken to Dr.Deshpande’s Hopital at Nagar.
Police recorded my statement on the next day of incident in the
hospital when I was bedded there. Muddemal article ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’
now shown to me are the same used in the crime. Accused
before the court are the same.”
PW3 Malhari Chandrabhan Anbhule is acquaintance of PW2
Ambadas. At exh.27, he deposed as under :
“(1) I know Ambadas Anbhule and accused persons and
Santosh. I am r/o.Ghumari – Amdadas Anbule has two wives.
Santosh is son of Ambadas begotten from his first wife. Accused
no.1 and 3 are sons of accused no.2 begotten from Ambadas.
Ambadas had allotted some of his lands in the name of accused
no.1 & 3. “I heard hue and cry from the spot of incidence, so I
rushed toward it. The incident occurred at about 12.00 to 1.00
p.m. in the noon. I rushed towards accused nos.1 and 3.
Ambadas and accused persons abusing each other. when I reach
spot of incidence, I noticed that Ambadas was having bleeding
injury, so I took him to hospital at Mirajgaon. At the relevant
time, bajra crop was present in the field, where spot οf
incidence is situated. I do not know the reason why the quarrels
were going on between the parties. Accused persons are present
before court to whom I can identify. Police had recorded my
statement.”
PW4 Laxmibai Ambadas Anbhule is mother of informant. At
exh.28, she deposed as under :
{9} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
“(1) I myself is residing with my husband at village Ghumari.
Our house is situated in vasti. Santosh is my son. Accused no.2
is second wife of my husband. Accused no.1 & 3 are sons of my
husband begotten from accused no.2. The incident has occurred
prior to 1/2 to 2 years, at about 12.00 to 1.00 in the afternoon.
My house is in field. At the relevant time, we were present in
our house. At relevant time, my husband, my son and myself
were harvesting bajra crop. Accused no.1 to 3 came there in the
field. They thrown chilly powder in our eyes. Accused persons
beat myself, my husband and son with the help of wooden rod.
Malhari Chandrabhan Anbhule was present in the vicinity,
came there. He pacified quarrel and took us to PHC at
Mirajgaon. I was discharged, however my son Santosh was
retained in the hospital. while my husband was referred to Civil
Hospital Ahmednagar for further treatment. Head of my
husband was fractured at 3 places. The blood was oozing out of
it. The blood was oozed upto Nagar. My son lodged complaint
against accused persons. As we all are injured, firstly we were
taken to hospital and then complaint was lodged. Police has
recorded my statement in connection with the offence. Accused
persons are present before Court. I can identify them all. The
three wooden rod now shown to me are the same used by
accused persons. Each accused was holding one. They are
already at Article No. ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C.”
PW5 Gorakh Vithoba Anbhule is Pancha. However, he did not
support prosecution case.
{10} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
PW6 Ajay Bhikaji Shinde is the Medical Officer, who examined
PW2 Ambadas, father of informant.
“(1) On 12/10/2002, I have examined injured namely Ambadas
Sonaji Anbhule and found injuries on his person –
1. CLW on right parietal region, 5 inch x ½ inch upto
bone deep, excessive bleeding present.
2. C.L.W.. on central part of skull 5 inch x 1/2 inch upto
bone deep, excessive bleeding present, patient
unconscious about 1 hour, bleeding through right ear
pulse 90 per minute, B.P. 100 x 70 mm of SD.
3. Human bite on right scapular region, 6 teeth marks in,
abrasion around it.
4. Human bite below left scapular region 4 teeth marks
in, abrasion around it.
All these injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Age of
the injury within 24 hours. Injury no.1 to 4 are grievous
in nature. Patient referred to Civil Hospital Ahmednagar
for further treatment. MLC now shown to me is the same,
its contents are correct, it bears my signature, it is placed
at Exh.36.
(2) I have also examined injured Santosh Ambadas Anbhule,
and found following injuries –
1. Swelling of left hand tenderness present,
2. human bite in between both scapular region
7 teeth marks in, abrasion around it.
3. Human bite below left scapular region, 5 teeth
marks in, abrasion around it.
{11} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
4. Human bite in right auxiliary region, 4 teeth
marks in, abrasion around it.
5. Human bite on right shoulder joint, 3 teeth marks
in, abrasion around it.
All these injuries caused by hard and blunt object.
All injuries are within 24 hours. Injury no.1 is simple in
nature, and injury no.2 to 5 are grievous in nature. I have
given O.P.D. treatment.
MLC now shown to me is the same, it bears my signature,
its contents are correct, it is placed at Exh. 37.
(3) In my opinion, injuries no.1 & 2 in Exh. 36, are
possible by assault by stone and stick.”
PW7 Parasram Durgaji Chattise is the Investigating Officer,
who conducted investigation and after gathering sufficient
evidence, filed chargesheet against the accused.
6. Here, crucial witnesses for prosecution are informant PW1
Santosh, injured PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai. Their
substantive evidence is already reproduced in the aforesaid
paragraphs. Now, it would be also desirable to take note of the
answers given by them while facing cross-examination.
PW1 Santosh, informant admitted that he cannot assign reason
{12} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
why in his report before Police there is no reference about his injured
father being hit by stone. This is material omission. Rest of the
omissions are not material. Further as regards throwing of chilli
powder is concerned, even though stated by this witness in his
evidence, this does not find place in the report. He had admitted
that relations between them and accused were strained. It needs to
be noted that according to him, the incident of assault occurred when
he and his father both were harvesting crop in the field and at that
time, it is alleged that accused came there. He is very categorical
that all accused persons beat him and his father by means of wooden
sticks and stone and also used chilli powder, but this is omnibus and
general allegation. Roles of three accused are not prescribed.
PW2 Ambadas while in cross-examination has admitted his
narrations about accused no.1 bringing cattle of Balu Chandrabhan in
their land for grazing and Laxmibai, his wife, asking accused no.1 to
remove cattle, and he and Hira rushed to the spot. However, such
narrations are not finding place in the report. Almost all suggestions
including relations with accused to be strained are admitted by this
witness. However, what is peculiar feature of his evidence is that he
has stated that when he was in the house, that time, there was scuffle
between his son Santosh and accused nos.1, 2 and 3 and therefore,
{13} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
he rushed from the house to reach the spot. Hence, the version
regarding starting of the occurrence, about he and his son to be
together harvesting the crop, as stated by informant son, is not
coming from his mouth.
This witness in his examination-in-chief, has stated that
accused no.1 alone beat him and only accused no.1 threw chilli
powder in his eyes. He went ahead and stated that he was caught
hold by accused no.1 and his private part was squeezed. However,
such is not the version of the his son i.e. informant. This witness has
allegedly stated about beating to his son by means of stick and stone,
which is not the version of informant also.
As regards to evidence of PW4 Laxmibai is concerned, she too
has stated about accused nos.1 to 3 coming to their field, throwing
chilli powder in their eyes, accused beating her husband and son by
means of wooden rod.
ANALYSIS
7. Therefore, apparently witnesses though claim to be either
injured or eye witnesses, are not consistent. On appreciation of
evidence of independent witness PW3 Malhari, it emerges from his
evidence that he has not seen the actual occurrence of assault as
according to him, when he heard hue and cry, he reached spot and at
{14} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
that time, he merely saw accused nos.1 to 3 and PW2 Ambadas
abusing each other. He claims to have noticed Ambadas suffering
bleeding injury. He has not stated about actual assault by any of the
accused by any stick, stone or about throwing chilli powder. He also
does not speak about any of the accused armed with stick, stone, and
carrying chilli powder. Therefore, from the tenor of cross-
examination of informant PW1 Santosh, injured PW2 Ambadas and
PW4 Laxmibai, it is emerging that their versions are apparently
inconsistent.
8. No doubt medical evidence shows that PW1 Santosh and PW2
Ambadas are examined by Medical Officer, and PW2 Ambadas had
suffered bleeding injuries, however, actually who amongst accused
nos.1, 2 and 3 is responsible for bleeding injury is not coming on
record.
PW6 Dr.Shinde, who examined PW2 Ambadas, has certified
noticing bite marks, but neither informant PW1 Santosh nor his
parents PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai have stated about any of
the accused indulging in the act of biting.
The aspect of previous enmity has been admitted by the
witnesses like PW2 Ambadas and PW4 Laxmibai. Above discussed
{15} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
material is proved through the Investigating Officer. Unfortunately,
seizure of articles is not proved as Pancha did not support
prosecution.
9. I have gone through the citations relied by learned counsel for
the respondent nos.1 to 3 on the point of principles to be borne in
mind while dealing with appeal against acquittal. In the light of
principles enumerated in the case of Ghurey Lal (supra), more
particularly, in paragraph nos.73 (1), (2) and (3) and in view of
findings of this Court in aforesaid paragraphs, on re-appreciation of
evidence, as like learned trial Court, this Court is of the considered
view that accused are entitled for benefit of doubt as prosecution
witnesses are not consistent. Therefore, no case being made out by
proving it beyond reasonable doubt, this Court refrains from
interfering by reversing acquittal.
10. Even though learned counsel for informant / revisionist
agitated in revision application that there is improper appreciation
and analysis by learned trial Judge, for above reasons, said
submission also has no substance. Accordingly, following order is
passed :
{16} CRI APPEAL 702 OF 2005 & REVN 409 of 2005
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Revision Application is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT