Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and N.R. Borkar, JJ., upheld the decision of the Trial Court in a case of causing grievous injury voluntarily.
An appeal was preferred by the State on being aggrieved by the decision passed by JMFC, thereby acquitting accused’s 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 504 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Factual Matrix
Complainant and his family members were cultivating the land known as “Talicha Bambar” of Polgaon. The said land of Mahadev Ramu Takkeka and Shankar Ramu Takkekar was adjacent to his land.
The complainant and his family members were having a way to go to their field for agricultural work from the land of Takkekar. However, said persons were not allowing them to go in their land from the land of Takkekar, and on that ground for the last 4 to 5 years, there was a dispute between the complainant and accused persons.
Though the above-said dispute was settled at village level.
On 15th July, 1998 the accused persons came on the field of the complainant and started abusing him, they said that if the complainant doesn’t run away they will not leave him and at the same time they started beating him and causing injury.
The complainant was taken to the Government hospital and Police Station Officer went there to record the complainant’s statement.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 326,325, 324, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC.
Since it was noted that, the accused did not come prepared to assault PW1, as khurpi was something which was used in the agricultural field for removing grass and other accused persons were not holding sickle.
The trial Court after perusal of entire evidence on record and in particular medical evidence reached the conclusion that ingredients of Section 326 of IPC were not attracted rather ingredients of Section 325 gets attracted in the facts of the case, and accordingly convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 325, 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC.
PW1 admitted that the main accused had given one blow by sickle on his left arm and also stated that sickle is same as ‘Khurpi’ which was commonly used for removing/cutting grass in the agricultural field.
Further, the PW1 stated that the main accused had given only one blow of sickle and multiple blows.
It is true that the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order in the year 2000 and this appeal is taken up for hearing in the year 2022.
Therefore, High Court held that, Trial Court’s opinion was plausible, reasonable and in consonance with the evidence.[State of Maharashtra v. Mahadev Ramu Takkekar, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 274, decided on 9-2-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for State.
Mr. Manish Mazgaonkar for Respondent 3.
