1. The appellant herein was tried by the Special Judge, Beed for an offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1998 and by his judgment and order dated 25th June, 1999 convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, the appellant has challenged the same in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
As stated by P.W.1 Murlisdhar Zhade, the alleged incident took place on 7.9.1998 at about 1.30p.m. approximately in the forest at village Karchundi. It is the case of the prosecution that Murlidhar Ksishan Zhade is serving in the forest department and as a part of his duty, he is expected to supervise the forest and to see that nobody should take their cattle in forest for grazing purposes. On 7th September, 1998 as a routine, as a part of duty, he had gone to village Karchundi, took round to the forest at about 11 a.m., he then went to cattle-shed of Babasaheb Bhosale from village Karchundi, which is adjacent to the forest, took meals at the cattle-shed. Accused Pandurang Shinde then came to the cattle-shed of Bhosale, there was some talk between accused and P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade about grazing of cattle as according to accused he has taken on auction some land from forest for grazing purpose, however,the other villagers used to graze the said portion which was taken on auction by Pandurang Shinde and he accordingly, requested P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade to see that the other persons should not graze their cattle in the portion which is taken on auction by Pandurang. P.W.1 accordingly, accompanied Pandurang Shinde to see the place from the forest department in respect of which grievance is made by Pandurang so as to see whether the cattle of any other villagers are being gazed in the said portion. However, P.W.1 noticed that no cattle was being grazed in the said portion and some cattle were in the field of the agriculturist excluding the forest area. On this count, there was some exchange of words between Pandurang and P.W.1 Murlidhar.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant abused the P.W.1 Murlidhar on his caste. The complainant P.W.1 Murlidhar belongs to Matang community which is scheduled caste, while accused Pandurang belongs to Maratha community and is not a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Accused / appellant Pandurang then beat Murlidhar with iron rod, gave one blow on thigh and other blow on palm. Babasaheb Bhosale then came there and rescued the complainant. Complainant was then taken to Civil Hospital, Beed for treatment. The P.W.2 doctor on duty examined P.W.1 Murlidhar and treated him. On the report of the P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade, crime was registered and after necessary investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special Judge on 21.12.1998. The VII Asstt. Sessions Judge, Beed framed charge against the appellant / accused for the offences punishable under Section325 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried, his defence was that of total denial and that he was falsely involved in the said crime.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that most reliable eye witness was not examined by the prosecution and the P.W.3 Pandurang Namdev Bhandari, panch witness and P.W. 4 Babu Namdeo Shinde turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The testimony of the other witnesses did not corroborate the complaint. There is no intention for the appellant to commit the offence. The evidence and the complaint do not show that the accused had intention to cause grievous injury and he had no knowledge that it will be an injury as per section 322 of I.P.C. and its explanation. It is clear that when accused is punished u/s 325 of I.P.C., prosecution should have proved there was intention or knowledge of accused person that it will become grievous injury. Burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The learned Counsel also submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint, which is not explained. She also submitted that though the medical evidence and statement of complainant corroborated each other, the P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde in his cross- examination admitted that injury No.2 can occur due to falling from the tree which is more serious than injury no.1 and the complainant was appointed for protection of the forest, and he used to climb on the tree for that purpose. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that prosecution made recovery panchanama u/s 27 of the Evidence Act but, it could not indicate that the iron rod, which was recovered by the prosecution, was concealed by the accused / appellant and hence, it is not admissible in evidence as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment in case of Pohalya Motya Valvi vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 1949). She also submitted that another most important requirement of section 27 of the Evidence Act is that the place from which weapon is recovered, should be mentioned in the recovery panchanama, which fact is missing in the panchanama and, therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The learned Counsel further submitted that the weapon of assault was not properly recovered and hence, that piece of evidence cannot be believed. The Counsel for appellant, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the evidence of the complainant P.W.1 Murlidhar is corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order.
6. To bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses.
With the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P., I have perused the entire material brought on record including Record and proceedings received from the trial Court. The P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade is the complainant. He has stated that on the relevant date he was doing labour work in the forest department at village Karchundi and he was expected to supervise the forest and as a part of his duty, he was to see that nobody should take their cattle in the forest for grazing purpose. On the day of incident, he had been to the said forest at about 11 a.m. He took round of the forest and thereafter, went to the cattle shed of one Babasaheb Bhosale of village Karchundi, adjacent to the forest. He took meal there. The appellant / accused herein came at the said cattle shed and told the complainant that he has purchased the grazing land on auction from the department. However, some other persons are grazing their cattle in the said field and, he requested the P.W.1 to take those cattle belonging to other persons to the cattle pond.
The witness states that they accordingly, went to grazing field. However, they did not notice other persons cattle grazing there. Thereafter, the accused started abusing him. Babu Shinde came there and inquired about the abusing. The accused thereafter, beat him with iron bar on left leg and when he was giving another blow, the complainant caught hold the said blow with his left hand. The persons gathered there. He raised shouts. Babasaheb Bhosale and Babu Shinde rescued him. Pandurang Bhandari and watchman were also there. He was then taken to the civil hospital at Beed for treatment and was in the hospital for about 21 days. There was fracture injury to his leg, his leg was put in plaster for about 12 weeks. He further stated that his complaint was recorded and due to injury to his hand, he put thumb mark on the complaint as he could not sign.
In his cross-examination, P.W.1 Murlidhar dienied the suggestion that to protect forest, he used to climb on the trees in the forest. He has reiterated that accused asked him why his cattle were taken by him in the cattle pond, some one month's back. He has further stated that it is not correct to suggest that he sustained injury as he fell down from a tree in the forest.
7. P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde had examined complainant Murlidhar and issued injury certificate. This witness noticed following injuries on the person of P.W.1 Complainant Murlidhar:
"(1) Contused lacerated wound over left leg (shin) with tenderness and of cracking sign over left shin (leg) the size was 3 cm.x 2 cm. deep to bone, age of injury may be within 24 hours and may be caused due to hard and blunt object.
(2) Contusion with tenderness on left palm near first MP joint, size 3 cm. x 3 cm. Age of injury may be within 24 hours, probable cause may be blunt and hard object."
P.W.2 Dr. Shinde has further stated that he advised for X-ray for the injury sustained by the patient Murlidhar and accordingly, X-rays were taken under supervision of the radiologist in the civil hospital. P.W.2 stated that X-ray No.DHB left 2185 of left leg shows fracture of tibia and fibula upper 1/3rd, while another X-ray No.DHB No.2186 of left palm shows dislocation of left 1st IP joint. According to this witness both the injuries were of grievous nature and he issued certificate accordingly. He has identified his signature on the certificate and also produced X- rays during examination-in-chief before the Court. He also identified the complainant. He had also brought Medico Legal Register with him. The P.W.2 doctor in his examination-in-chief stated that Injuries No.1 and 2 referred by him in the medical certificate, are possible by iron rod.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that Injury No.2 which is on left palm is possible due to fall from the tree. However, Injury No.1 is not possible due to fall. He has specifically denied suggestion that the injuries No.1 and 2 are not possible due to beating with iron rod. The injury certificate is on record, which shows the nature of injuries as grievous. In the history column, it is written - "H/o alleged assaulted - today."
8. The prosecution did examine P.W.3 Pandurang Namdeo Bhandari, as panch witness. However, he was declared hostile. Therefore, the A.P.P. sought permission to cross-examine him. He has stated in his cross-examination that he himself and one Popat are working as watchman since last four years at the forest at village Karchundi. The forest is in survey No.49 at vilage Karchundi. There are trees in forest. Some of them are big and some of them are small. Barring that he has not supported the prosecution story in any manner.
9. P.W.4 Babu Namdeo Shinde was examined by the prosecution. However, he was also declared hostile and, cross-examined by the A.P.P. He has stated nothing which can be useful for the prosecution.
10. P.W.5 Mahadeo Malhari Veer has stated in his evidence that he knows accused Pandurang and complainant Murlidhar. Complainant is watchman in forest of Karchundi. He is having nearabout 36 sheep, which he used to take to forest for grazing. He has stated that he is not aware about the incident at all. Therefore, this witness was declared hostile and A.P.P. was permitted to cross-examine him. However, nothing was brought on record by way of his cross- examination to support the prosecution case.
11. P.W.6 Sahebrao Govindrao Gaisamudre, Police Head Constable stated that on 7.9.1998 he was on duty at civil hospital, Beed. On that day at 6 p.m. he received a letter from the medical officer informing him that M.L.C. case is admitted in the hospital. He went there and recorded statement of Murlidhar Zade as per his version. The witness admitted the statement Exh. 13 shown to him and his signature thereon as also the contents thereof. He stated that he took thumb mark of Murlidhar on the F.I.R. after it was read over to the complainant, as there was injury to his left hand and saline was to his right hand. He sent the said statement to the Police Station, Beed town. The said papers were further forwarded to Neknoor police station as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of that police station. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned the time on the F.I.R. as to when it was recorded.
12. P.W.7 Mohan Vithal Jadhav, P.S.I. Neknoor has stated that on 12.9.1998, Crime No.78/98 was given for further investigation to Head Constable Tupe. He has stated that during investigation, Head Constable Tupe recorded of witnesses namely Babu and Mahadeo, and that he called them and verified their statements and they stated that the statements are recorded correctly.
13. P.W.8 Madhukar Ganpatrao Tupe, Head Constable, Neknoor Police Station, stated in examination-in-chief that he was attached to Neknoor Police station on 10.9.1998 as P.H.C.
The investigation of Crime No.78/98 was given to him and he arrested the accused on 11.9.1998, recorded the statements of the witnesses on 10.9.1998. On 12.9.1998, the accused produced one iron rod and the same was attached under panchanama in presence of panchas at Exh.26/C. He also prepared spot panchanama at Exh.25/C on 10.9.1998. Upon perusal of the spot panchanama, it appears that the said panchanama records that on the spot, no any marks were found. The witness admits the panchanama shown to him and his signature thereon as also the contents of the panchanama, to be correct.
14. The complainant in his statement before the Court has specifically stated that the accused beat him with iron bar on left leg and when he was giving another blow, the complainant caught hold the said blow with his left hand. The persons gathered there. He was then taken to the civil hospital at Beed for treatment and was in the hospital for about 21 days. There was fracture injury to his leg, his leg was put in plaster for about 12 weeks. All the suggestions have been denied by the complainant in his cross- examination. The evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde corroborates the evidence of the complainant. The evidence of P.W.2 has been discussed in paragraph 7 herein above in detail. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same once again. The injury certificate, which forms part of the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde, unequivocally indicates in History Column - "H/o alleged assaulted - today". Therefore, extract of M.L.C. register dated 7.9.98 at 6.45 p.m. does disclose the history that the complainant was assaulted. The incident had also taken place on the same day in the afternoon. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of the complainant and also the P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar and other evidence brought on record by the prosecution, in my opinion, the trial Court has taken correct view in the matter. There is evidence of the complainant, corroborated by medical evidence and, therefore, the appellant herein has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. Both the injuries are grievous in nature. The Medical Officer has specifically stated in his evidence that Injury No.1 is not possible due to fall. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. It has come on record that the appellant was arrested on 12.9.1998 and released on 19.9.1998. For a few days, he was in jail. However, taking into consideration the date and year of the alleged offence, which took place in the year, 1998 and the appellant / accused has not misused the bail granted to him during pendency of this appeal and also the argument of the Counsel for the appellant that the alleged offence is the first offence and the appellant has not committed any other offence and also, taking into consideration that all the three alleged eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and also the evidence of the prosecution on the point of recovery of the iron bar is shaky, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. R.I. for three months is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the order of the Special Judge, Beed directing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for 15 days, is maintained.
15. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. R.I. for three months is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The order of the Special Judge, Beed directing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for 15 days, is maintained. The appellant - accused need not be sent to jail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.