Dadaba Natha Dahifale vs State Of Maharashtra

ORAL JUDGMENT :

The present revision is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31/12/2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehkar in Criminal Appeal No.113/2019 (Old Criminal Appeal No.25/2016), thereby confirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lonar on 21/03/2016 in Regular Criminal Case No.138/2013.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 27/08/2013 at about 9:00 a.m. the applicant had entered in the office of the Principal of College and assaulted the informant by an iron chair and uttered obscene words and abused him, thereby causing annoyance to the informant. On the basis of the report lodged by the informant, the Police Station Officer, Lonar registered the offences punishable under Sections 353, 324, 323, 506 and 294 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant vide Crime No.135/2013 on 27/08/2013. The respondent/Police Station Officer, Lonar after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lonar. The learned Trial Court has framed charge on 12/08/2014 vide Exh.12 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 324, 504, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant.

The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses in support of their case. The learned Trial Court has recorded the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Prosecutor. The applicant was thus convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of Indian Penal Code. However, the applicant came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The said judgment came to be challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehkar by filing an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.25/2016, which later on was registered as Criminal Appeal No.113/2019. The said appeal was decided along with appeal bearing Old Criminal Appeal No.54/2016 (New Criminal Appeal No.118/2019) filed by the informant against the inadequate sentence praying for enhancement of sentence. Both the appeals came to be decided by common judgment dated 31/12/2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehkar, vide which the appeal filed by the applicant against the conviction is partly allowed and instead of the sentence imposed upon the present applicant under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code for a period of Simple Imprisonment of three months, the applicant was released on probation of good conduct by executing a bond of good behaviour to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for a period of one year with surety in the like amount. Whereas, the appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant came to be dismissed.

The applicant though was released on probation of good conduct by executing a bond, however, challenges his conviction under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and prays for acquittal on the ground that there is no enough evidence to convict the applicant under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Thakkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below would show that evidence of PW 2 - Shamrao Bade, the informant was not corroborated by any prosecution witnesses. There are no eyewitnesses to the said incident. In fact, the learned Trial Court has held that witness Nos.3 and 4 examined in support of the prosecution cannot be said to be eyewitnesses, however, merely relied upon the testimony of PW 2- Shamrao, the informant to convict the applicant. The testimony of PW- 2 in the absence of any corroboration could not have been relied solely to base a conviction under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

The cross-examination conducted by the accused is not taken into consideration, wherein the accused has been able to extract confession that there were several such disputes pending between the applicant and the complainant/informant. The accused had also been able to extract the confession from the witnesses that they are all interested witnesses, working in the school, where informant was Principal and as such had a motive to falsely implicate the present applicant. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the applicant came to be convicted.

The learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution, as the Doctor who was examined to prove the injuries, admitted in his testimony that there is overwriting in the column of probable age of injury and that injury is possible if any person falls down from the table. The Doctor also admits that there is no seal of the Rural Hospital, Lonar on the medical certificate issued by him. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of the informant/PW 2- Shamrao could not have been relied upon by the Trial Court to base upon a conviction. The learned Appellate Court had also turned a blind eye to the admissions extracted during the cross-examination. The applicant/accused had brought his evidence within the realm of preponderance of probabilities and therefore, had been able to establish sufficient enough evidence, which would rebut the case of the prosecution and should have resulted into his acquittal. The impugned judgments convicting the applicant are based upon the erroneous findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts below, which are perverse to the evidence led by the prosecution and the cross-examination conducted by the accused. The impugned judgments are, therefore, liable to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, to set aside the conviction under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code imposed upon the applicant.

As against this, Mr. Ghogre, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State strongly opposes the revision application and prays for dismissal of the same. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the State has been successfully able to establish the guilt of the present applicant with the said crime. PW-2/informant had stuck to the prosecution case, where there are other two eyewitnesses who had supported the prosecution. The other two witnesses though are not the eyewitness to the said incident, however, had stated that when they entered the cabin, they found that PW-2/informant was bleeding and the applicant was holding an iron chair. The iron chair was found from the spot. The iron chair was also seized from the spot, which had blood stains over it. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the present applicant and as such, the applicant came to be rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that perusal of the injury certificate would show that the victim PW-2/informant had sustained abrasions and two contusions on his forehead. The injuries though are shown to be simple in nature, however, the same corroborates the allegations made by PW-2/first informant. The Investigating Officer also supports the case of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence collected by the prosecution was sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the present applicant in voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon i.e. iron chair. The applicant was rightly convicted under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration that the applicant was involved in the present crime as his first offence and there were no criminal antecedents and also taking into consideration the good conduct of the present applicant, the conviction of three months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- was altered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and instead, the applicant was released on a bond of good conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Thus, both the impugned judgments are just and proper and are liable to be confirmed. The applicant has made out a case for interference of this Court in its revisonary jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Revision Application is devoid of any substance and is liable to be rejected.

I have gone through the testimony of PW 2- Shamrao, the depositions of PW 3 - Vitthal Mundhe and PW 4- Sunil Sonawane, who are named by the first informant in his deposition to be the eyewitnesses of the said assault by the applicant. The depositions of PW 3 - Vitthal Mundhe as well as PW 4- Sunil Sonawane would show that they had arrived on the spot after the incident. Their depositions itself suggest that they had arrived at the spot after the incident had taken place. Thus they cannot be said to be eyewitnesses of the said incident. PW 5 - Bhaskar Daund also arrived on the spot after the incident and thus is also not an eyewitness of the said incident. Thus, the prosecution was left with only the testimony of PW 2 – Shamrao, the first informant. The cross-examination of PW 2 – Shamrao shows that the accused/applicant had been able to extract various admissions that there were serious disputes between the applicant and the College staff including PW-2/informant. PW 2- Shamrao had admitted that there were criminal complaints pending against him filed by Jagarao Chavan and Uttam Sanap and PW 2 – Shamrao had also admitted that earlier some criminal complaints were filed by the applicant/accused Dadaba Dahifale against the first informant Shamrao. The informant has also admitted that one criminal complaint was filed by Ashruji Tanpure, alleging misappropriation at the behest of the first informant. The accused had put suggestions to the applicant that the accused had made a complaint to Pune University pertaining to Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) degree of the first informant. He had also suggested in the cross-examination that the officers of Anti-Corruption Bureau came to the College for enquiring into the misappropriation complaint. The accused had also been able to extract the confession that in pursuance to the earlier assault allegedly inflicted by the first informant -Shamrao upon the accused Dadaba Dahifale, there was an FIR bearing Crime No.644/2013 registered against him. There is also suggestion given by the accused that in the scuffle in the cabin, the applicant had fallen down and sustained injuries on his forehead.

The witnesses examined by the prosecution were also put to searching cross-examination by the accused, wherein the accused has been able to extract the confessions of most of the witnesses that they were all employees of the institution, where the first informant Shamrao was working as a Principal. The witness Bhaskar Daund has specifically stated that the Principal Shamrao is his brother-in-law, thus, appears to be an interested witness.

The cross-examination of the Investigating Officer shows that the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not collected any documentary evidence about the presence of the witnesses in the College and has also not verified about the presence of the accused on the date of incident. The cross-examination of Dr. Sudhakar Mundhe, who was examined to prove the injuries sustained by the complainant also shows that he has admitted that the MLC register was not carried along with him. It was also admitted by the said Doctor that the certificate does not bear seal of Rural Hospital, Lonar. It was also admitted by him that the injury certificate did not indicate the name of Doctor who had signed. It was also admitted by the Doctor that the certificate is having some overwriting at the column of probable age of injury. Most importantly, PW 8 - Dr. Sudhakar Mundhe has admitted that the injuries mentioned in the certificate are possible, if any person falls down from the table.

Thus, taking into consideration the defence, which has been put by the accused in the cross-examination of all the witnesses, makes the case of the accused falling within the realm of preponderance of probabilities, which therefore falls for consideration of the case of the accused, particularly looking to the fact that the accused has been able to bring out a case of counterblast as earlier Crime No.644/2013 is already admitted to have been registered for assault on the accused by the informant Shamrao.

Perusal of the record also shows that the applicant was also tried for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined the witnesses even on the point of establishing the guilt of the accused under Sections 294, 504, 506 and 353 of Indian Penal Code. However, the said offences are not held to be proved against the present applicant falling short of proving the guilt beyond doubt. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, in my opinion, also falls short of proving the guilt beyond doubt. The evidence led by the prosecution, though creates a grave suspicion, however, it is almost settled law that the suspicion, however, cannot replace the proof. Thus, in my opinion, the learned lower Courts below have committed an error in convicting the applicant under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant has made out a case for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgments passed by the learned lower Courts below appear to be suffering from grave error and material irregularity. Hence, I am inclined to exercise discretion to pass the following order :-