1. Both these appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in special (Atrocities) Case No. 5 of 2010, by which the appellant in criminal appeal No.24 of 2026 is convicted under Section 332 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for three moths. He is also convicted under Section 504 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for 15 days. In so far as the appellant in criminal appeal No.66 of 2016 is concerned, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 332 of I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for six months. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the informant, Dr. Pankaj Vasantrao Jawale, who was Chief Officer of Municipal Council, Osmanabad.

PROSECUTION CASE

2. The informant, Dr. Pankaj Jawale, belongs to the Mahar caste and was serving as the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Osmanabad (now Dharashiv). On 15.05.2007, at about 4:45 p.m., a family member of one Yuvraj Patil approached him to obtain a death certificate of Vijaykumar Patil. There were arrears of the Municipal tax. Therefore, P.W.1 Dr. Jawale asked him to clear the dues. At that time, the appellant Sunil @ Pintu Rochkari and co-accused Anna Rochkari came there to meet P.W.1 Dr. Pankaj Jawale for their business purpose. An auditor of the Municipal Council, Mr. Kulkarni, was also present there. Certain bills of Municipal Tax of Shri Balu Prayag were pending, he had come there for follow up on the same. Thereafter, Yuvraj Patil again came and started demanding the death certificate.

3. At that time, the appellant Devanand entered the cabin of the informant and questioned why the death certificate had not been issued. He remarked that the informant lacked intelligence, that he should have some shame, and that he was not performing his duties properly. He further taunted him, by stating that he was usually under police protection and asked where are the police now? He then abused the informant by referring to his caste and also used filthy language. Thereafter, he assaulted him on the right side of his face and also beat him with his hands on the nose, face and back. Blood started oozing from his nose. At that time, Pintu @ Sunil Rochkari and Anna Rochkari also entered and joined in abusing the informant as They threatened to kill him. They caught hold of the collar of his shirt, and broken its button. Amar Magar and Dilip Gangane, councilors, came there, rescued the informant, and made him to sit on his chair.

4. After they left, the accused/appellants alongwith Appasaheb Rochkari again returned with the death certificate of Vijaykumar Patil, which was brought by Santosh Ingle, and by using force, made the informant to sign the death certificate. The appellant, Pintu @ Sunil Rochkari, also raised the issue of his bill for job work done in Jijamata Nagar and the informant was forced to sign that bill as well. Thereafter, they went to the cash section, obtained the cheque book, and compelled the informant to sign two blank cheques. Accordingly, he signed the two blank cheques as well as the death certificate of Vijaykumar Patil.

5. The informant lodged a report at Exh.61. He was sent to Rural hospital for medical examination. He handed over the broken button of his shirt to the police. The police drew up the panchanama and seized his white shirt. The investigation was carried on and chargesheet ws submitted in the Special Court. The charge was framed and on denial of charge case proceeded.

7. During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel Mr. Katneshwarkar, for the appellant in criminal appeal No. 24 of 2016 and Mr. Natu, learned counsel for the appellant in criminal appeal No. 66 of 2016, submitted that there is no sufficient and reliable evidence to hold that the accused are liable for the offence punishable under sections 332 and 504 of I.P.C. They submitted that the informant’s evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses. The treating doctor’s evidence is corroborative, as he has admitted that such injuries to the nose are possible due to the summer season and if a hand with rough surface comes into contact with the nose. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable. The informant’s shirt was not produced before the court. The eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The cross examination of the witnesses was not considered by the learned trial court. It failed to consider that there were two political groups in the village and that the police falsely implicated the appellants in the case. The panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution. The incident regarding one Sangeeta Kadam occurred on the same day at about 4:00 p.m. has not been stated by the informant that she lodged a report against him alleging that he attempted to catch hold of her hands. The appellant i.e. accused No. 1, was not heard on the point of sentence, as he was engaged in a marriage ceremony. Though he returned at 2:30 p.m. after recess in the court, he was not heard on the point of sentence. It is lastly prayed to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and acquit the accused persons.

8. The learned A.P.P. for the respondent–State submitted that there is reliable evidence of the informant, duly corroborated by medical evidence. Even though the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the consistent and cogent testimony of the informant cannot be jettisoned. The report was promptly lodged. Though the defence has set up a case regarding the incident of Sangeeta Kadam, alleging that the informant attempted to catch hold of her hand, it does not disprove the medical and oral evidence of informant by which he sustained the injuries. Nothing was elicited to disbelieve the informant. On the point of occurrence of the incident, the essential ingredients of sections 332 and 504 of I.P.C. are also proved against the appellant in appeal No. 66 of 2016. The learned A.P.P. lastly submitted to dismiss the appeals.

9. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the evidence of the material witnesses and the impugned judgment and order of conviction. Most of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 Amar Magar has partly supported the prosecution case. He deposed that he, alongwith other persons, was present there. At that time, the informant told him that he was assaulted by those three accused persons. P.W.7 Subhash Salunkhe is the witness, who identified the cheque at Exh.64 for which the seizure panchanama was drawn up in his presence, which is at Exh.148. However, he denied that accused Pintu @ Sunil was present there. Even after cross examination, no any incriminating material was elicited. Dr. Mustafa Palla (P.W.9) deposed that during medical examination of Pankaj Jawale, he found injuries on his person i.e. (i) bleeding from the right nostril and (ii) abrasion on the right dorsum of the hand. The age of injuries was within 24 hours. He proved injury certificate at Exh.151. He denied that the history was not disclosed by Pankaj Jawale and it was stated by Mr. Kulkarni, who brought him for medical examination. He admitted that due to rupture by slight pressure, in the summer season, nasal blood vessels can bleed and abrasion is possible if hand came in contact with a rough surface. Haji Maulana Choudhari P.W.10, Dy.S.P. and Mahadev Shinde P.W.11 deposed how the report was lodged and manner in which investigation was carried out. The application for death certificate at Exh.62 was seized. Death certificate is at Exh.63. The cheque was drawn up in the name of Swami Samarth Majur Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Tuljapur, is at Exh.64.

10. The informant admitted lodging of a report by one Sangeeta Kadam against him at Tuljapur police station and that criminal case No.651 of 2007 was registered against him for the offence punishable under section 354 of the I.P.C., which was compromised. He had admitted about the political leadership of the accused and other persons. The bill for the job work in Jijamata Nagar was not in the name of accused No.1. He denied that he did not sustain any injury.

11. The evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Mustafa Palla corroborates the testimony of the informant that he was examined and found to have bleeding from right nostril and abrasion on the right dorsum of hand. The age of the injury was within 24 hours. He proved the injury certificate at Exh.51. The evidence of P.W. 10 investigating officer and P.W.11 Mahadev Shinde pertains to compliance with legal formalities of investigation and collection of documents etc. From their evidence also, no any reasonable doubt established to disbelieve the informant and treating Dr. Mustafa Palla P.W.9.

12. The trial court while appreciating the evidence, held that hurling of abuses on the caste are not proved. However, hurling of other abuses are proved from the evidence of informant. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. i.e. voluntarily causing hurt to the informant, who is a public servant, was discharging his lawful duty with intention to cause obstruction to him and voluntarily obstructing him by causing injury are proved.

13. The evidence of the informant and Dr. Mustafa Palla, P.W.9 establishes the essential ingredients of Sections 332 of I.P.C. The informant’s oral evidence that he was abused by saying that establishes the essential ingredients of Section 504 of the I.P.C. against the appellant Devanand in appeal No. 24 of 2016 i.e. intentional insult and gives provocation to public peace in the public office by such abuses

14. As far as the not hearing of the appellant Devanand Rochkari on the point of quantum of sentence and fine is concerned, the learned trial court held that he was not present there. However, while determining the quantum of sentence, the trial court observed in para 28 held that the appellant/accused Devanand is an accused in other cases. Two cases under Section 307 of I.P.C. were pending against him, which resulted in acquittal because the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. It was further observed that he had a habit of remaining absent. No doubt, these observations are not legal and sustainable but it is to be noted that on the basis of these observations, he is not held liable. He is held liable on the basis of oral evidence of the informant Dr. Pankaj Jawale (P.W.1) and Dr. Mustaffa Palla (P.W.9). Merely because there were some mistake in the observations regarding other crimes aginst the appellant Devanand as to the quantum of sentence and fine in two cases, the appellant-accused Devanand cannot be acquitted and also sentence cannot be reduced. In his absence also the trial court has rightly and reasonably awarded the quantum of sentence and fine. There is no such evidence on record to show that in the afternoon the appellant Devanand was present in the court. In the final order directions to issue a conviction warrant against him are given. Merely because there are erroneous observation of the trial court as to the acquittal of accused Devanand Rochkari in other cases, it is not a ground to acquit him and also to reduce quantum of sentence. Such observation against the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2016 does not render the entire judgment illegal or erroneous.

15. The offences committed against a public servant is serious offence committed by both the appellants. One year’s quantum of punishment alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the I.P.C. is a just and proper sentence, and no interference is warranted in it.

16. For the offence punishable under Section 504 of I.P.C. the appellant Devanand Rochkari is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for fifteen days. The said sentence is also just and proper and no interference is warranted in it.

17. As far as accused No. 3, Sunil @ Pintu Rochkari, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2016, is concerned, the offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. is also proved against him, and he has been sentenced only to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Accused No. 2, Appasaheb Haribhau Rochkari, has not preferred any appeal. He deposited the fine amount.

18. There is specific evidence of assaulting a public servant while he was discharging duty against these three accused persons. Thus, the overt act of all the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the presumption of innocence of the accused has been rebutted by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. The reasons and findings of the learned trial court are legal and correct. There is no substance in the grounds of objections in the appeals to warrant interference and to set aside the impugned judgment. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

a. The Criminal Appeals are dismissed.

b. The bail bonds and sureties of both the appellants i.e. Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari, the appellant in criminal appeal No. 24 of 2016 and Sunil @ Pintu s/o Sambhaji Rochkariin, the appellant in criminal appeal No. 66 of 2016, are discharged from liability.

c. Issue a conviction warrant against the appellant Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari appellant in criminal appeal No. 24 of 2016.