Santosh Damodhar Aragade vs The State of Maharashtra

In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur dated 05.09.2023 in Sessions Case No.97 of 2019 recording conviction to the appellant for offence under Section 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code [IPC].

According to prosecution, on 11.03.2016 around 10.30 p.m., when informant, a revenue officer and his team were on patrolling duty, vehicle bearing No.MH-20-DE-7555 was intercepted and taken to police station. Accused pulled informant from the vehicle and he fell and suffered injury. He reported the incident to police and PW5, who carried out investigation, charge-sheeted accused, who was duly tried vide above Sessions Case. Trial ended up in conviction and hence, this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is false implication. That, there is neither any credible evidence, nor there is corroboration to the testimony of complainant from independent witness. That, only interested witnesses are examined and as there was no evidence to show that complainant was on official duty, the charge of Sections 353 as well as 332 of IPC ought not to have been applied. Attributing incorrect appreciation by trial Court, interference is urged for.

Learned APP justified the judgment and order of conviction by pointing out that there is convincing and trustworthy evidence of complainant PW1 finding support from independent witnesses PW7 and PW8. All witnesses are consistent about the overt act of accused. There is no serious challenge to their testimonies. Medical expert confirm injury suffered by complainant and, therefore, he justifies the judgment and order of conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal.

Case of prosecution is rested on as many as eight witnesses. Crucial evidence is of complainant PW1 and two eye witnesses PW7 and PW8 followed by the evidence of medical expert PW6.

Re-appreciated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. PW1–complainant has narrated whatever he stated in the complaint, to the aforesaid extent, on the point of occurrence. There are testimonies of PW7 and PW8 and these witnesses seem to be party to the squad, which was headed by PW1. They laid support to the testimony of PW1 on the point of vehicle being intercepted and it being taken to police station and on the way, accused pulling down complainant, as a result of which he fell and was required to be taken to the hospital. PW6 is the medical expert, who deposed about examining complainant and noticing abrasion injuries, which are simple in nature.

Thus, complainant's evidence finds support from independent witnesses as well as medical evidence. Though all above witnesses are cross-examined, their evidence has remained unshaken on the point of occurrence and it is not rendered doubtful on any count.

Therefore, as the prosecution story that the complainant was a public servant and, while discharging his duty, was obstructed and pulled down, causing him to fall and suffer injuries, is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the case of the prosecution deserves to be accepted, and the learned Trial Court has rightly done so.

The learned Trial Court had admittedly extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant, as he qualified to receive the said benefit. No error or illegality has been brought to the notice of this Court so as to warrant interference. Hence, the following order is passed :-