Popat Manikrao Kokate vs State Of Maharashtra & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5453 Bom

was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time, he was sitting as

a first pillion rider and behind him, the deceased was sitting as

the second pillion rider on the motorcycle. He has deposed that

at about 9.30 p.m. when he reached the spot of offence, the

speed of the motorcycle was slowed down and then all of a

sudden, all the accused came near motorcycle with weapons like

swords, axes, scythes, iron bars and torches (2 to 3 torches).

Vashisht (PW 10) has deposed that accused No. 14 gave blow of

sword on the neck of deceased and then the motorcycle fell

down.

40) Vashisht (PW 10) has described the role played by all

the accused in the attack made on him and also on the deceased

and Sumant (PW 6). He has given evidence that blows of scythe

were given by accused No. 10 on his left arm and right forearm.

He has deposed that accused No. 11 gave blow of sword on his

left ear, accused No. 5 gave blow of axe from blunt side of axe

on his back, accused No. 7 gave axe blow on left knee and left

calf, accused No. 13 gave blow on right shoulder and accused

No. 8 gave blow of sword which he tried to evade and then the

blow hit both his palms and knees.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

41) Vachisht (PW 10) has given specific evidence in

respect of assault made on the deceased and he has deposed

that accused No. 14 had given blow of sword on the neck of

deceased, accused Nos. 1 and 9 had used swords during the

attack made on the deceased, accused Nos. 4 and 12 had used

axes for attacking deceased and accused Nos. 3 and 6 had used

sticks for attacking the deceased. Vachisht (PW 10) has also

given evidence that all the accused had assaulted all the three

persons, who were on the motorcycle and that way he has tried

to show the active participation of all the accused in the

incident. He has given evidence that accused No. 2 had given

stick blow to Sumant. He has given evidence that Sumant

somehow escaped and ran away.

42) Vachisht (PW 10) has given evidence that due to the

assault made on him, he collapsed and he became unconscious.

He has given evidence that he regained consciousness after

about one hour and then he went towards the huts situated in

the vicinity on the eastern side and he entered the house of one

Vishnu Gaikwad. He has deposed that he took the shelter in the

house of Gaikwad on that night due to fear. He has given

evidence that he requested Gaikwad to give his message to

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

Maruti Payal and it was given through Raghu. He wanted help

for shifting him to hospital. Maruti is resident of Ambilwadgaon.

43) Vashisht (PW 10) has given evidence that early in

the next morning, he went to bus stop and Sumant came there.

He has given evidence that Maruti Payal also came and from

there, they went to Neknoor Police Station. He has given

evidence that he was referred to first Neknoor Government

Hospital by police and from there, he was shifted to District

Hospital, Beed. He has deposed that though he was referred to

the hospital, Sumant remained in the police station. He has

given evidence that he was indoor patient for many days in

District Hospital. Evidence is brought on record on motive in the

evidence of PW 10. In the evidence, he has identified all the

accused and also the weapons used which are shown to be

recovered by police. He has admitted that PW 6 used to

participate in the political activities, but his evidence does not

show that he himself had shown interest at any time in the

politics.

44) Vashisht (PW10) has admitted in the evidence that

Vishnu Gaikwad, the owner of the house, where he had taken

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

shelter, is relative of Sumant. But, he has deposed that on that

night, it was not known to him. He admits that he did not narrat

the incident to Gaikwad and also to Maruti before reaching the

police station. Though these admissions are there, the tenor of

the cross examination does not show that the defence was

disputing that he was present on the spot when assault was

made. It is suggested to him that father of deceased and

Sumant (PW 6) had asked him to give the names of accused and

so, he has given the names of the accused. He denied this

suggestion. It does not look probable that he falsely implicated

the accused when attempt on his life was also made. Cross

examination of Vashisht (PW 10) shows that in the year 1993 he

was witness in a criminal case which was registered on the

report given by deceased Mahavir. He admits that in the same

year, a case was filed against him and deceased Mahavir in Beed

Court. However, the suggestions and the record do not show

that in those cases, accused persons were involved. It can be

said that Vashisht (PW 10) was close to the deceased, but only

due to this circumstance, inference is not possible that he has

deposed falsely and his entire evidence needs to be discarded.

45) In the cross examination of Vashisht (PW 10),

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

contradiction is proved which is to the effect that in previous

statement, it was disclosed that on 2.9.1994 Sumant had come

to the house of Gaikwad and from there Sumant and Vashisht

(PW 10) had together left for bus stop. This cannot be called as

material contradiction and due to this, the evidence of this

witness cannot be discarded. He has not taken the names of

witnesses like Yuvraj and Raghu. Their names are taken by

Sumant (PW 6), but one needs to kept in mind that Vashisht

(PW 10) had no interest in politics and more persons were

known to Sumant. In any case, this circumstance also cannot go

to the root of evidence of these two witnesses. It can be said

that the defence wanted to suggest that PW 6 and PW 10 ought

to have made disclosure about the incident to Yuvraj and Raghu

and these two witnesses ought to have been examined by

prosecution. When there is direct evidence and there is

corroboration of circumstances to direct evidence, the

prosecution cannot be expected to give more circumstantial

evidence. It needs to be kept in mind that virtually terror was

created due to assault and they must have made an attempt to

see that without getting noticed, they are able to reach the

police station.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

46) Dr. Sayyed (PW 12) has given evidence to prove the

injuries which were found on the person of Vashisht. He

examined Vashisht on 2.9.1994 at about 8.15 a.m. Doctor found

following injuries on the person of Vashisht.

"1. Incised wound over the left temporal and occiptal region of the scalp, size 4"x 3/4" x 3/4" , transverse in direction, margins regular, eliptical in shape, blood clot present.

2. Incised wound over the left palm from the base of the middle finger to the hypothenar eminance, size 4"x ½" x½", oblique in direction, margins regular.

3. Incised wound on left palm from index to middle finger, size 3"x½"x½", transverse in direction, margins regular.

4. Incised wound over the left palm over thenar eminance, size 3"x½ x½" , oblique in direction, margins regular.

               5.       Incised          wound        over     left     palm       over
               hypothenar eminance, 4"x½x½",                           oblique         in
               direction, margins regular.

6. Abrasion over the right forearm, upper third, size 3"x⅓", oblique in direction, margins irregular.

7. C.L.W. over dorsam of the right wrist, size 3"x3/4" x3/4", boule shaped, margins irregular.

8. Incised wound over right palm, over the hypothenar eminance, size 1½x x½" x½", margins regular and transverse in direction.

9. Incised wound over the front of the left knee,

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

size 1" x⅓" x⅓", margins regular, vertical in direction.

10. Abrasions three in numbers, over the left side of the apex of the nose, size ½"x¼" each, vertical in direction, margins irregular.

11. Incised wound over left right side of the upper lip, size 1"x⅓"x⅓", oblique in direction, margins regular.

12. Incised wound over the right side of the upper back, size 3"x1"x1", eliptical in shape, margins regular, transverse in direction.

13. Incised wound over the upper third of the left upper arm, size 4"x⅓x⅓", transverse in direction, margins regular.

14. Abrasion over the top of the left shoulder, size 3"x⅓", transverse in direction, margins irregular."

Doctor has given opinion that these injuries were sustained by

Vashisht within 24 hours of examination and they were caused

by sharp weapons like swords and axes. The M.L.C. prepared by

this doctor is duly proved as Exh. 112 and it is consistent with

the oral evidence of doctor. In view of nature of injuries, which

were sustained by Vashisht (PW 10), this Court holds that the

explanation given by Vashisht that giving treatment to him was

necessary and so, he was referred to the hospital and F.I.R. of

PW 6 was recorded first, needs to be accepted. It is already

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

observed that there is no inconsistency on material points in the

evidence of these two witnesses. The injuries also explain the

delay caused in recording the statement of PW 10 which is

hardly of one day after the registration of the crime.

47) Due to the aforesaid circumstances, the submission

of defence that due to political rivalry, an attempt was made to

falsely implicate more persons of opposite side and for that the

delay was caused in registering the crime and recording the

statement of Vashisht has no force. The evidence of Vashisht

(PW 10) shows that his relations with accused persons were not

strained prior to the date of incident. Though some record is

produced to show that after the date of incident some cases

were filed against each other, that circumstance cannot be

considered for appreciating the evidence of PW 10. On

31.8.1994 and 1.9.1994, Vashisht (PW 10) had not given

company to the deceased in Beed. This circumstance shows that

he was not that interested in politics. He was shifted to Beed

from hospital of Neknoor immediately and it was necessary for

Police Officer to start investigation after registration of the crime

and to take steps to see that no more incident takes place due

to the incident in question and so, it cannot be said that the

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

statement of PW 10 ought to have been recorded immediately

and only after that he ought to have been referred to

Government Hospital. To this witness also, it is suggested in the

cross examination that he had no opportunity to see the

assailants as the focus of torches light was directed on his face.

This suggestion is denied by him. It is already observed that he

knew all the accused and when torches were in the hands of

some of accused, it can be said that he had opportunity to see

the others and particularly, the persons who were attacking him

in the light of some torches. In view of the number of injuries

sustained by him, it can be said that not much importance can

be given to the circumstance that his statement was recorded by

police on next day. At the most, it can be ascertained as to

whether there is more corroboration to his evidence and as to

whether any of the accused can be given benefit of doubt due to

existence of some circumstances. Medical evidence given by Dr.

Sayyed (PW 12) is consistent with the version given on the

incident by PW 10 on the injuries sustained by him.

48) While describing the assault, Vashisht (PW 10) has

given evidence that deceased was also assaulted in his presence

and he could see that assault. He has given specific role played

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

by the accused in assault made on the deceased. Thus, specific

role is attributed to accused Nos. 1, 4, 9, 12 and 14 that they

had used sharp weapons against the deceased. Medical evidence

shows that all the injuries which were found on the dead body

were caused by sharp weapons. Vashisht (PW 10) has deposed

that accused Nos. 3 and 6 used sticks against deceased Mahavir.

But, considering the nature of injuries, it can be said that

injuries caused by sticks were not noticed on the dead body.

Severe force was used when the blows were given by using

sharp weapons on the person of deceased and that can be seen

from the injuries which were found on the dead body.

49) The description of the injuries found on the dead

body of Mahavir is given in the inquest panchanama and that is

already mentioned. The P.M. report at Exh. 100 is proved in the

evidence of Dr. Abhiman (PW 7). He conducted the P.M.

examination on 2.9.1994 between 12.45 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. He

found following injuries on the dead body.

"1. Laceration on right temporal region, 3"x 1/2", upto bone in depth, transverse in direction.

2. Lacerated wound on right side of fore-head, 4"x1", 1/2" in depth, verticle in direction.

3. Laceration of right side of nose, 2"x1/2" .

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

4. Laceration of occiput of the skull, 13"x2", extending upto brain in depth, transvers in direction.

5. Lacerated wound over the base of the neck, posteriorly, 11"x 2" , 3" in depth, transverse in direction, 7th cervical vertebra fractured.

6. Lacerated wound over right scapula, 5"x2", upto bone in depth.

7. Lacerated would over right deltoid, 4"x 1/2" of skin depth.

8. Laceration on right hand below elbow, 7"x3" and 1½" in depth, oblique in direction.

9. Amputation of right hand at wrist joint, amputed part is attached to body by skin ventraly.

               10.      Lacerated     wound        over     right      thumb,
               1½"x½" , 1 cm in depth.

11. Right index finger, distel phalynx amputed.

12. Lacerated wound of 11"x9" and 3" in depth over left shoulder and left scapula, vertical in direction, due to which head of the left humerous dislocated.

13. Laceration on left arm, 4"x½" over tricp muscle, skin depth, vertical.

14. Left hand amputed at wrist joint, amputed part attached to body by skin, verntraly.

15. Left index, middle, ring and little finger amputed from proximal phalynx.

16. Laceration on left thigh on middle third, 6"x2" and 2" in depth, transverse in direction.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

17. Laceration on right thigh above knee 3"x1" and 1½" in depth, oblique in direction.

18. Laceration on left tendo calcaneum, 3"x1" and ½" in depth, transverse in direction.

19. Laceration over right calf, 7"x3" and 2" in depth.

20. Laceration over right tendo calcaneum, 6"x1" and 1" in depth transverse in direction."

50) Injury No. 5 found on the neck of the dead body

shows that it was inflicted from backside. The evidence given by

PW 6 and PW 10 shows that Mahavir was pillion rider and was

sitting on extreme backside. In the F.I.R. also, similar

description of incident was given by PW 6. In all 20 visible

surface wounds were found on the dead body and as per the

opinion given by the doctor, all of them can be caused by

weapons like swords and axes. Considering the size of the

injuries and particularly depth of the injuries, inference is easy

that much force was used at the time of giving of each blow.

Both hands of the deceased were amputated and fingers were

also amputated. By making assault from backside the main

tendons of the legs of deceased were cut and that can be seen

from the injury Nos. 18 and 20. Though some injuries are

described as laceration, in view of nature of injuries and the

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

opinion given by the doctor, this Court holds that there is no

reason to disbelieve the opinion evidence and it can be safely

accepted. Even empty scabbard of sword was found on the spot

showing that sword was used in the incident. Opinion of the

doctor has the base and the opinion is to the effect that the

appearance of the injury depends on the part of the body where

the injury is inflicted like injury Nos. 2, 5, 9 to 19. This Court

holds that the medical evidence is consistent with the oral

evidence of PW 10 and PW 6 so far as the assault which was

made on deceased is concerned. At the cost of repetition, it

needs to be observed that probably hard and blunt object like

stick was not used against the deceased though there is such

evidence against the accused Nos. 3 and 6. Due to these

circumstances, the evidence as against accused Nos. 3 and 6

needs more close scrutiny. Similarly, Dr. Sayyed (PW 12) has

given evidence that injury which was found on the back of PW

10 cannot be caused by hard and blunt object which is

inconsistent with the version that blunt side of axe was used by

accused No. 5 against PW 10. Due to this circumstance, the

evidence as against accused No. 5 needs a more close scrutiny.

51) In addition to the medical evidence, there is more

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

circumstantial check to the evidence of Vashisht (PW 10).

Dadarao (PW 8) who is from village Neknoor acted as panch

witness when the clothes of Vashisht were seized by the police

on 3.9.1994 in the hospital. The panchanama is duly proved as

Exh. 102. This evidence and Article Nos. 32 and 33 show that

clothes had cuts, they were in torn condition and there was

blood on the clothes. This evidence is consistent with the oral

evidence of PW 10. In the evidence of Bhimrao (PW 1), the

panchanama of seizure of clothes of the deceased is proved as

Exh. 76. They were taken over when the dead body was taken

for conducting P.M. examination. These clothes show that there

were cuts and the clothes were found in torn condition. This

evidence is consistent with the oral evidence of PW 6 and PW

10. This evidence is not much disputed as the fact of homicidal

death is not disputed.

52) The panchanama in respect of seizure of clothes of

accused No. 3 was prepared in presence of Bhimrao (PW 1). The

seizure was made after house search. There are many members

in the family of accused No. 3. Further, the clothes were

allegedly already washed. No blood was detected on these

clothes. So, no circumstantial check is available to direct

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

evidence given against accused No. 3.

53) In the evidence of Dayanand (PW 4), panch witness,

the seizure of clothes of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 is proved

and the panchanama is proved as Exh. 91. They were arrested

immediately i.e. on 2.9.1994. Only the clothes of accused No. 3

were taken over from his residential place. The C.A. report in

respect of these clothes is being discussed at later stage.

54) Dayanand (PW 4) has given evidence that one more

panchanama, Exh. 92, was prepared when the clothes of

accused Nos. 9 to 13 were seized by police on 7.12.1994. The

evidence about seizure of clothes and weapons is challenged by

the defence by contending that these articles were not properly

closed and sealed and there was the possibility of tampering

with the articles like putting, sprinkling blood on these articles.

It can be said that there is not much force in this submission as

only on few articles blood was detected.

55) Navnath (PW 2), panch witness has given evidence

that on 9.10.1994 accused Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 13 gave

statements to police in his presence and in the presence of other

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

panch witnesses that they were ready to produce the weapons.

His evidence shows that all the four accused were taken

together to various places. However, his evidence show that

accused No. 9 Bhausaheb Survase only produced two axes from

the field of Bhausaheb and they were found in concealed

condition. These articles are given number as Articles 52 and 53

and they are identified by Navnath (PW 2) in the Court. These

articles were having labels. According to Navnath (PW 2),

accused No. 9 then produced a sword which was not having

handle, Article 54 and that was seized under the same

panchanama under Exh. 78. On this article, there was no label

when evidence was recorded. As per the C.A. report, human

blood was detected on this sword. There are inconsistencies and

defects of aforesaid nature in the evidence. The evidence of

Investigating Officer (PW 13) is also not that convincing on

aforesaid points.

56) Rajabhau (PW 3) is other panch witness from

Neknoor. He was panch witness on inquest panchanama, spot

panchanama and also statement given by accused No. 5. He has

given evidence that on 10.9.1994 accused No. 5 gave statement

under section 27 of the Evidence Act and he showed readiness

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

to produce weapon axe. Memorandum of this statement is

proved as Exh. 82. He has given evidence that accused No. 5

then produced two axes and one stick which were found

concealed under the heap of fodder near his cattleshed. The

seizure panchanama of these weapons, Exh. 86 is proved in the

evidence of PW 3. These articles are identified by this witness as

Articles 36, 37 and 38. This evidence remained unshattered.

57) Rajabhau (PW 3) has given evidence that accused

No. 2 gave statement to police in his presence on 10.9.1994 and

he showed readiness to produce stick. Memorandum of this

statement is proved as Exh. 83. Rajabhau (PW 3) has given

evidence that accused No. 2 then produced a stick from his

cattleshed which was seized under panchanama at Exh. 87. The

stick is described as Article No. 39. Such sticks are readily

available in the village. The sticks were not sent to C.A. Thus, as

a circumstance, it cannot give corroboration to oral evidence.

58) Rajabhau (PW 3) has given evidence that accused

No. 4 gave statement to police on 10.9.1994 and he showed

readiness to produce the axe. Memorandum of his statement is

proved as Exh. 84. Evidence is given by this panch witness that

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

accused No. 4 then produced one axe which was in his

cattleshed. The panchanama of seizure of axe is proved as Exh.

88 and this Article is described as Article No. 40.

59) Rajabhau (PW 3) has given evidence that accused

No. 6 also gave statement on the same day to police in his

presence that he will produce the stick. Memorandum of his

statement is proved as Exh. 85. Rajabhau (PW 3) has given

evidence that accused No. 6 then produced a stick from

cattleshed and it was seized under panchanama at Exh. 89. The

stick is described as Article 41. What is observed in respect of

evidence of recovery of stick from accused No. 2 is applicable to

this evidence given against accused No. 6.

60) Much was argued in respect of the recovery of the

weapons by police on 10.9.1994 on the basis of so called

statements given by the aforesaid accused under section 27 of

Evidence Act. It was submitted that the recovery was very late

and when these persons were known as accused to police,

during house search also these weapons could have been

recovered. Though there is such possibility, the circumstances

that they were not available to police till 10.9.1994 also cannot

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

be ignored. Thus, the accused became available when police

were on the verge of completion of investigation. Though they

were not declared as absconding, the fact remains that they

were not available to police. So, the aforesaid evidence which

can be used for corroboration cannot be discarded straight way

but it needs to be ascertained as to whether the evidence can be

relied upon due to other circumstances.

61) Bajirao (PW 9), panch witness of Neknoor has given

evidence that on 16.10.1996 accused No. 11 gave statement to

police in his presence and showed readiness to produce the

weapon chopper. Memorandum of this statement is proved as

Exh. 104. Evidence is given by Bajirao (PW 9) that accused No.

11 then took the police, panchas to the field of accused No. 11

and from there he produced the weapon chopper which was in

concealed condition. The seizure panchanama at Exh. 105 is

proved in the evidence of Bajirao (PW 9). The article recovered

is described as Article No. 55. Bajirao did not know anybody

from village Kumbhari and that can be seen from his evidence

and he can be definitely said as independent witness.

62) Manik is other panch witness and he is from village

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

Daithna (Ghat). He has given evidence that clothes of accused

No. 8 were taken over by the police on 3.9.1994. Accused No. 8

is dead. The articles are described as Article No. 34 and already

this Court has observed that this evidence can be considered to

ascertain the truth.

63) Ramdas (PW 13), P.S.I., who made investigation has

given evidence on the instances like recording of F.I.R. on

2.9.1994, preparation of spot panchanama and inquest

panchanama on 2.9.1994, arrest of accused Nos. 2 to 7 on

2.9.1994, seizure of their clothes. He also recorded statement of

Vashisht (PW 10) in Civil Hospital on the next date. He has given

evidence on the statements given by accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6

under section 27 of Evidence Act before panch witnesses on

10.9.1994. He has given evidence on the recovery of weapons

on the basis of statements made by these witnesses and he has

given evidence that the articles were properly closed and sealed.

64) Evidence of Ramdas, Investigating Officer (PW 13)

shows that he arrested accused Nos. 9 to 13 on 7.10.1994 and

after their arrest, he took over their clothes under panchanama.

He has given evidence on the statement given by accused No. 9

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

to him in the presence of panch witness on 9.10.1994 under

section 27 of the Evidence Act and according to him, the two

documents at Exhs. 118 and 119 were prepared by him. His

evidence as against the accused Nos. 9, 12, 13 is somehow

ambiguous and it cannot be accepted in view of the settled

position of law. He has tried to say that accused Nos. 9, and 10

to 13 together had gone towards the spot from where weapons

were recovered and accused Nos. 12 and 13 together produced

two axes. However, he has given evidence against accused No. 9

that he separately produced sword which was not having fist.

65) Investigating Officer (PW 13) has given evidence

that on 6.10.1994 accused No. 11 gave statement under section

27 of the Evidence Act and on that basis weapon chopper was

recovered. This evidence is consistent with the record and the

evidence of panch witnesses.

66) The C.A. Report at Exh. 46 shows that blood group

of deceased Mahavir was 'O', the C.A. Report in respect of blood

of injured Vashisht (PW 10) at Exh. 47 shows that his blood

group is 'AB' and the C.A. Report in respect of blood of Sumant

(PW 6) which is at Exh. 48 shows that his blood group is 'A'.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

Unfortunately, the Trial Court has missed Exh. 48 and due to

that some incorrect observations are made and it is held that

there is inconsistency in the oral evidence and circumstances.

67) The aforesaid evidence if considered together shows

that accused No. 4 - Manohar was arrested on 2.9.1994. No

blood was found on his clothes if C.A. Report is considered. But,

human blood was detected on the axe which was recovered on

the basis of statement given under section 27 of Evidence Act by

this accused. Accused No. 5 - Bhaskar alias Bandu was also

arrested on 2.9.2994. No blood was detected on his clothes, but

human blood was detected on axe which was recovered on the

basis of statement given by him under section 27 of Evidence

Act. Accused No. 9 - Bhausaheb came to be arrested on

7.10.1994. No blood was detected on his clothes, but human

blood was detected on sword which was recovered on the basis

of statement made by him under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Accused No. 11 - Chandrasen was arrested on 7.10.1994. No

blood was detected on his clothes and blood was not detected

on the weapon chopper recovered on the basis of statement

given by him under section 27 of Evidence Act. He is step

brother of deceased Mahavir. He was not available till 7.10.1994

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

and that can be said in respect of accused Nos. 9 to 13. Accused

No. 10 - Punjab was arrested on 7.10.1994. Human blood was

found on his clothes which were taken over after his arrest. It is

already observed that the evidence about recovery of weapons

in respect of accused Nos. 10 to 13 given by Investigating

Officer is not that convincing and acceptable and it is not

consistent with the evidence of panch witnesses and the record.

Accused No. 7 was arrested immediately on 2.9.1994 and on

one of his cloths, human blood was detected. Stick is shown to

be recovered from accused No. 6, but stick was not sent to C.A.

Office.

68) While appreciating the evidence, the relationship of

accused inter-se also needs to be kept in mind. Accused Nos. 12

and 13 are sons of accused No. 2 and accused no. 2 is also

uncle of accused No. 4. Accused Nos. 12 and 13 were not

available to police till 7.10.1994. Specific allegations are made

by Vashisht (PW 10) against accused No. 13 that he gave blow

of sharp weapon on the right shoulder of Vashisht. Similarly,

specific allegation is made by Vashisht (PW 10) against accused

No. 12 that he assaulted the deceased with axe. Similar

evidence is given by Vashisht (PW 10) against accused no. 4

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

that he assaulted deceased with axe. As against accused No. 2,

both PW 6 and 10 have given evidence that he gave blow of

stick on the legs of PW 6 and there is corroboration to that

evidence. Accused Nos. 9 and 10 were also not available till

7.10.1994. They are real brothers of main accused, accused No.

14 and so, they had strong motive. There is specific evidence as

against accused No. 10 that he assaulted Vashisht (PW 10) by

using sharp weapon. Similarly, specific evidence is given against

accused No. 9 by PW 10 that he used sword against the

deceased. The sword is recovered and human blood was

detected on the sword on the basis of statement given by

accused No. 9. Accused No. 7 - Baburao is son of accused No. 3

- Digamber. Digamber is real brother of Bhimrao and deceased

was nephew of Digamber. Specific evidence is given as against

accused No. 7 by PW 10 that accused No. 7 assaulted him on

left knee and left calf by using axe. Human blood was detected

on the weapons recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 4, 5

and 9 and human blood was detected on the clothes of accused

Nos. 7 and 10.

69) It is not the case of any of the accused that injury

was sustained by the accused in the incident. It can be said that

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

the incident was virtually planned in such a way that there was

no opportunity to the deceased to resist. There was no other

alternative before Sumant (PW 6) than to run away considering

the strength of the opposite side. But the remaining two persons

like Vashisht (PW 10) and the deceased could not escape and

they could not resist.

70) The discussion made above shows that to the direct

evidence of Sumant (PW 6), there is sufficient corroboration of

circumstantial evidence. His clothes were having blood stains

which were taken over on the 2.9.1994 itself. There was injury

to his right leg, but he could not be referred to hospital

immediately as there was necessity to make progress in the

investigation and he was taken to the spot of offence on that

day. The record shows that it is PW 6 who had taken the police

to spot of offence. The Investigating Officer was busy in making

investigation on 2.9.1994 and so, it can be said that not much

can be made out due to circumstance that PW 6 was examined

by the doctor on 3.9.1994. Inference is possible that due to the

brutal murder of Mahavir, who was leader of one group, tension

was created in the village and the persons involved in the

political rivalry from the side of Mahavir were afraid due to

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

murder of their leader. In F.I.R., PW 6 had mentioned the names

of all the accused and due to that, not much can be made out of

the circumstance that police statement of PW 10 was recorded

on the next day. Some observations are already made in that

regard. There is more than sufficient corroboration of

circumstances to the direct evidence of PW 10. The

circumstances that PW 6 could describe the specific role of only

three accused cannot make out much in favour of defence as

there are other circumstances which are already discussed and

the evidence is sufficient to infer that he somehow escaped and

ran away. His evidence about the presence of most of the

accused remained unshattered.

71) There are some discrepancies with regard to the

recovery of weapons and the recovery of blood stained clothes.

When there is direct evidence not much importance can be given

to non recovery of some weapons. There is the evidence of

medical officer which supports the direct evidence. In the

present matter, there is recovery of some weapons and on the

spot also empty scabbard of sward was lying. When the

provision of section 149 of IPC is available, only the active role

played by the persons who were members of unlawful assembly

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

needs to be proved. Due to the availability of this provision, not

much importance can be given to other circumstances like a

particular weapon which was used by a particular accused as per

the direct evidence was not recovered at his instance. The

discussion made above shows that the circumstances have given

rise to doubt only in respect of active role played by accused

Nos. 3 and 6 and also about their presence. There is no

circumstantial check to the direct evidence given as against

them. Evidence given as against them can be separated from

the evidence which can be believed and so, this circumstance

cannot go to the root of the entire case of prosecution. Accused

Nos. 1, 8 and 14 died during the pendency of the matter. But

the discussion of the evidence made above shows that there is

strong evidence available against accused Nos. 1, 8 and 14.

72) Accused No. 10 has given defence evidence to prove

his defence of alibi. He was working as driver with M.S.R.T.C. at

the relevant time. He has examined Kachru (D.W. 1) conductor

and Shriram (D.W. 2), Assistant Traffic Inspector to show that on

1.9.1994 and 2.9.1994 he was on duty. The conductor has given

evidence that on 1.9.1994 they had taken the bus to Pachangri

and there they had taken halt as they were to leave on return

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

journey on the next morning from that village. He has tried to

say that on night between 1.9.1994 and 2.9.1994 accused No.

10 was in his company and so, there is no question of his

involvement in the incident. His evidence in cross examination

shows that he has avoided to inform on many things.

Suggestion is given that the distance between Pachangri and

Kumbhari is less than 25 k.m. According to D.W. 1, their bus had

reached Pachangri at 7.45 pm. If the distance was less than 25

k.m. it was possible for him to go to Kumbhari, take part in the

incident at 9.30 p.m. and then return to Pachangri.

73) When there is defence of alibi, it is necessary to

show that it was not possible for the accused to remain present

at two spots at the same time. The record which is produced

through the evidence of D.W. 2 - Assistant Traffic Officer does

not show that accused No. 10 was expected to stay in village

Pachangri. As per the muster roll, he was marked as present on

1.9.1994 and 2.9.1994, but the attendance roll shows that from

3.9.1994 he proceeded on leave. He was on leave from 3.9.1994

to 23.9.1994 and thereafter, he was absent on duty till

31.9.1994. Further muster is not produced. As per the

discussion made, he came to be arrested on 7.10.1994. These

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

circumstances are not certainly in support of the innocence of

accused No. 10. It is not his case that any interim relief like

interim anticipatory bail or interim bail was granted in his favour.

Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the evidence on

alibi is not sufficient to prove this defence.

74) The aforesaid discussion shows that there was more

than sufficient evidence for conviction of accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7

and 9 to 13. The Trial Court has given such reasons for acquittal

of all the accused which cannot sustain in law. The reasons can

be summed up as follows :-

(i) The Trial Court has held that PW 6 and PW 10,

the two injured eye witnesses are not reliable as there

was delay caused in giving F.I.R. and there was delay

caused in giving police statement by PW 10. For

disbelieving them more importance is given to the

circumstance that the injury sustained by PW 10 on

back was caused by sharp weapon. But the oral

evidence is given to the effect that blunt side of axe

was used by accused No. 5. The Trial Court had not

kept in mind that it was a night time and many persons

had made assault simultaneously on the deceased, PW

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

10 and to some extent on PW 6. In such a case, it is

necessary to ascertain as to whether the accused

named were involved in the incident, whether they

were members of unlawful assembly and what weapon

was used. That approach was not used and due to that

grave error is committed by the Trial Court.

(ii) The Trial Court had not seen the C.A.

Report in respect of the blood sample of first informant

and due to that, it is held that there is no explanation

with prosecution about the blood of group 'A' detected

on some articles. The Trial Court has gone ahead with

the reasoning in wrong way and has held that there is

possibility of manipulation. When one of the injured

was having blood group 'A', one injured was having

blood group 'AB' and the deceased was having blood

group 'O' and when it is not the case of any accused

that he had sustained injury in the incident, not much

importance could have been given even if there was

some inconsistency in C.A. Report and the oral

evidence. Similarly, on the point of medical opinion

evidence, the Trial court has not kept in mind law

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

developed on such opinion. Reliance can be placed on

this point on the observations made by the Apex Court

in the case reported as (2005) Cri.L.J. 4111 [State

of Punjab Vs. Hakam Singh]. The observations are

as follows :-

                       "whenever,     there      is   conflict   between
                       medical evidence and ocular testimony
                       normally    ocular     testimony       should      be
                       preferred unless it belies fundamental
                       facts."



               (iii)    The Trial Court has committed serious error in

holding that the evidence on motive given by the

prosecution is not sufficient and it was not convincing.

It is already observed that there is more than sufficient

evidence on record and the evidence shows that it is

not disputed that there was political rivalry between

the two groups. The defence itself has brought on

record the motive in the form of litigation so far as

accused No. 11, who is step brother of deceased is

concerned. Further, when there is the direct evidence,

motive does not play important role. Only on the basis

of nature of injuries inflicted on the person of

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

deceased, it can be said that a decision was taken by

these persons to finish Mahavir.

(iv) The Trial Court has given much importance to a

circumstance that in some instances of seizure, there is

possibility that the property seized was not properly

closed and sealed in packets. One witness has given

admission that after affixing labels of panch witnesses

on articles, the articles were visible. In view of this

circumstance, the Trial Court has held that there was

possibility of tampering with the articles by the

investigating agency. The Trial Court has taken the

support of some observations made by this Court in

the cases reported as 1995 Cri.L.J. 1432 (BOMBAY

HIGH COURT) [State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu

Barku Gade] and 1996 Cri.L.J. 3147 [Ashraf

Husain Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra]. There are

some observations in these cases, but they were made

in view of the facts of those cases. The facts of each

and every case are always different and what is held

on the basis of facts of one case cannot be repeated in

other case having different facts. Further, in the

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

present matter, circumstances were to be used only for

corroboration. This Court has no hesitation to observe

that even if the evidence on the recovery of clothes of

the accused and the recovery of weapons at the

instance of accused on the basis of statements given

under section 27 is ignored, other evidence is sufficient

to prove the offences for the reasons already

discussed.

(v) One observation made by the Trial Court that the

evidence is doubtful in nature as the dead body was

lying at some distance from motorcycle is not only

untenable, but it is shocking. The evidence shows that

many assailants were involved and even though there

was no opportunity to resist, the victim must have

tried to avoid the blows. There was not much distance

between the place where the dead body was lying and

the place where the motorcycle was lying and that is

already quoted. This circumstance shows that the Trial

Court had chosen altogether unacceptable approach

and there is possibility that it was done as the Trial

Court was thinking that due to involvement of many

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

persons, it was not possible for it to separate the truth

from falsehood. Due to that the Trial Court found

excuses of this nature.

(vi) The Trial Court has discussed the circumstance

that to some extent the evidence of PW 6, the first

informant has no corroboration of the evidence of PW

10. The Trial Court was expected only to consider the

consistency. Two witnesses are not expected to give

same account when the incident of present nature

takes place. Further, the Trial Court ought to have kept

in mind that PW 10 was present on the spot till the

end, but PW 6 somehow escaped from the spot and

probably immediately after the starting of the assault.

The evidence of PW 6 in such a case can be considered

only on the point of involvement of the accused in the

incident, for ascertaining as to whether they were

present on the spot at the relevant time. He was

expected to say something as who had given blow to

him and that is done by PW 6. Thus, on this point also,

the Trial Court has committed grave error.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

(vii) The Trial Court has held that due to night

time and as it was dark, it was not possible for PW 6

and PW 10 to see as to who was assaulting the

deceased. This is again surprising and shocking

observation. This Court is avoiding to discuss the

circumstance like the light available from moon and

stars in the night time. But, there is specific evidence

that torches were used by the assailants. One such

torch was found on the spot when spot panchanama

was prepared. Further, it can be said that use of the

torch was to ascertain that the person who was being

assaulted was Mahavir and due to that it can be said

that in the light of some torches, there was opportunity

to PW 6 and PW 10 to see and identify the assailants.

Thus, on this point also, the Trial Court has committed

grave error.

(viii) The Trial Court has disbelieved the

witnesses due to reason of non disclosure of incident

by them to the persons in whose contact they had

come before approaching police. It is true that PW 6

and PW 10 have admitted that they did not disclose the

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

incident to anybody prior to making disclosure to

police, but that does not mean that the incident did not

take place, they were not present on the spot and they

did not disclose the names because they wanted to

implicate more persons of opposite side. It is already

observed that PW 6 and PW 10 were afraid and they

remained alive fortunately on that night. The Trial

Court has discussed the observations made in some

reported cases to hold that due to non disclosure of the

incident to others immediately, the witnesses cannot

be believed. It is already observed that the facts and

circumstances of each and every case are always

different. The murder of Mahavir was committed in

such a way that terror was created and nobody who

had opportunity to witness the incident and particularly

the persons who sustained injuries and escaped

fortunately must have remained in frightened state of

mind on that night. When there is such evidence from

the witnesses, they could not have been disbelieved.

(ix) The Trial Court has considered one more

circumstance like non examination of some witnesses

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

who are considered as material witnesses by the Trial

Court. The persons like Gaikwad in whose house

shelter was taken by PW 10 and two other persons

who had come to bus stand on the next morning are

held as material witnesses. At the most, these

witnesses could have given evidence on the disclosures

made to them. This point is already discussed. For the

same reason, this Court holds that the Trial Court has

committed error in holding that those were material

witnesses and non disclosure of the incident to those

witnesses has created doubt about the versions of PW

6 and 10.

75) The aforesaid discussion shows that the Trial Court

did not make even an attempt to marshal the evidence given

against each and every accused and then to appreciate the

evidence given against each accused as a whole. When many

accused are involved in a case like present one and when there

is possibility of false implication due to the enmity between the

two groups, it becomes the duty of the Court to separate the

grain from chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject

the rest. Even when one person was brutally murdered by

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

cutting him into pieces and there was an attempt on life of two

others, the Trial Court did not show sincerity in making such

effort. Further, it is necessary for the Court to appreciate the

evidence as a whole after marshaling the evidence given as

against each accused. That approach was not adopted by the

Trial Court. Whatever can be called as 'evidence' under section 3

of the Evidence Act must be considered by the Court. Whether a

particular piece of evidence is relevant or not relevant and

whether the evidence can be believed or not believed, need to

be discussed by the Court in minute details. If such approach is

not used, all the accused will get acquittal when many accused

are shown as involved in the crime like present one and where

there are more than one eye witnesses. The Trial Court has

definitely shirked the aforesaid duty.

76) When the prosecution case rests mainly on direct

evidence given by the injured witnesses, circumstantial evidence

can be used only to corroborate or contradict such witnesses.

The circumstances do help the Court to ascertain the truth and

find out the veracity of the witnesses. In every case, there are

bound to be some discrepancies in direct evidence when more

witnesses are available and in such a case, it is the duty of the

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

Court to ascertain as to whether such discrepancy has given rise

to 'doubt' and then to ascertain whether the doubt is

'reasonable'. Thus, the doubt may arise from the evidence and it

should not be imaginary. To ascertain as to whether the

circumstance has created doubt, the evidence as a whole needs

to be considered and for calling particular doubt as reasonable,

the doubt must be based on reason and common sense.

77) The learned counsels for respondents, accused

placed reliance on some cases reported as 1996 Cri.L.J. 3147

[Ashraf Hussain Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra] cited

supra. The effect of delay caused in giving F.I.R. and giving

statement to police by eye witness is discussed. This case is

considered by the Trial Court also. Sufficient discussion is made

on this point by this Court already. In the present case, the so

called delay caused cannot be called as fatal as the reasons for

the delay are apparent even from the record. Further, only due

to such delay, the evidence cannot be discarded and what is

required is the close scrutiny of the evidence given by such

witness. The point of delay cannot be taken that seriously when

injured eye witness gives the evidence in the Court.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

78) The learned counsels for respondents/accused made

a submission that copy of F.I.R. was not sent to J.M.F.C.

immediately and as it was sent after five days of the date of

registration of the crime, there was non compliance of provision

of section 157 of Cr.P.C. and this circumstance has created a

possibility of false implication. On this point, the learned APP

placed reliance on the case reported as (2005) Cril.L.J. 1402

[Sunil Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan]. The Apex

Court has made following observations :-

"It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. It would depend upon the facts of each case. In the instant case as appears from the records the investigation was taken up immediately and certain steps in investigation were taken. Therefore, the plea that there was no FIR in existence at the relevant time has no substance. Additionally, no question was asked to the investigation officer as to the reason for the alleged delayed dispatch of the FIR. Had this been done, investigation officer could have explained the circumstances. That having not been done, no adverse inference can be drawn."

79) On the point of non compliance of provision of

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

section 157 of Cr.P.C., some circumstances can be quoted. In the

present matter, accused No. 1 to 7 whose names were

mentioned in the F.I.R. came to be arrested on 2.9.1994 itself.

They were produced with remand report before J.M.F.C. on

3.9.1994. Accused No. 8 came to be arrested on 3.9.1994 and

he was also produced immediately before J.M.F.C. There are

remand reports available on the record and they show that sum

and substance of the F.I.R. was mentioned in the remand report

which includes the names of all the accused persons mentioned

in the F.I.R. Thus, nothing can be made out in favour of the

accused due to the circumstance of giving report to J.M.F.C. of

F.I.R. after five days of the registration of the crime.

80) The learned APP for the State and the learned

counsel for revision applicant submitted that the Trial Court has

committed error in not appreciating the object behind sections

141 and 149 of IPC. On this point, they placed reliance on the

case of Sunilkumar cited supra. Attention of this Court was

drawn to the following observations made by the Apex Court :-

"1. The 'common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behavior of the members at or near the scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even from some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop during the course of incident at the spot eo instante.

2. The purpose for which the members of the assembly set out or desired to achieve is the object. If the object desired by all the members is the same, the knowledge that is the object which is being pursued is shared by all the members and they are in general agreement as to how it is to be

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

achieved and that is now the common object of the assembly. An object is entertained in the human mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and, like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act which the person commits and the result therefrom. Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behavior at the time of or before or after the occurrence.

3. Section 149, IPC consists of two parts. The first part of the section means that the offence to be committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. In order that the offence may fall within the first part, the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was member. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed and this is what is required in the second part of the section. The word 'knew' used in the second limb of the section implies something more than a possibility and it cannot be

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

made to bear the sense of 'might have been known'. Positive knowledge is necessary. When an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. That, however, does not make the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come within the second part but not within the first part. The distinction between the two parts of Section 149 cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined whether the offence committed falls within the first part or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls within the second part. However, there may be cases which would be within the first part but offences committed in prosecution of the common object would also be generally, if not always, be within the second part, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object.

4. Where a group of assailants who were members of the unlawful assembly proceeds to commit the crime in pursuance of the common object of that assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe the actual part played by

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

each one of them and when several persons armed with weapons assault the intended victim, all of them may not take part in the actual assault. Therefore, it was not necessary for the prosecution to establish as to the specific overt act was done by each accused."

There cannot be dispute over the observations made by the

Apex Court in the case of Sunilkumar cited supra. In the

present matter also, in view of facts established, the only

inference possible is that the assailants had gathered there to

form unlawful assembly, they had formed unlawful assembly and

its object was to finish their enemy viz. Mahavir. Thus, the

assailants were certain about the object of unlawful assembly.

They knew that Mahavir was returning to village on that night

and the evidence on record is sufficient to infer that they knew

that Mahavir was not alone and if required, they were required

to tackle with PW 6 and PW 10. That is why many assailants had

gathered there. They made assault on PW 6 and PW 10 also in

such a way that they attempted to finish PW 6 and PW 10 also.

PW 6 and PW 10 were close to deceased and assailants left the

place with belief that PW 10 and Mahavir were dead. Thus,

accused No. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 to 13 are guilty of the offence of

murder of Mahavir by forming unlawful assembly and they are

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

guilty of offence of attempt of murder of PW 6 and PW 10 by

forming unlawful assembly and they were armed with deadly

weapons. In view of the evidence already discussed, this Court

holds that due to nature of evidence, it will be sufficient in the

present matter to convict the aforesaid accused for offence of

murder of Mahavir punishable under section 302 r/w. 149 of

IPC, the offence of attempt of murder of Sumant (PW 6)

punishable under section 307 r/w. 149 of IPC and for the offence

of an attempt of murder of Vashisht (PW 10) punishable under

section 307 r/w. 149 of IPC. This Court intends to give minimum

penalty for these offences and so, there is no need to give

hearing to the accused on the point of sentence. Thus, both the

proceedings filed against accused need to be allowed and

following order is made.

ORDER

(I) The appeal is partly allowed. Accused Nos.

2, 4, 5, 7, 9 to 13 are convicted for the offence of

murder of Mahavir under section 302 r/w. 149 of IPC

and each of them is sentenced to suffer life

imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one

thousand); in default of payment of fine, each of the

accused is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

month.

(II) Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 to 13 are

convicted for the offence of an attempt of murder of

PW 6 - Sumant punishable under section 307 r/w. 149

of IPC and for this offence, each of the accused is

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three

years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five

hundred); in default of payment of fine, each of the

accused is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen

days.

(III) Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9 to 13 are

convicted for the offence of an attempt of murder of

PW 10 - Vashisht punishable under section 307 r/w.

149 of IPC and for this offence, each of the accused is

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five

years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five

hundred); in default of payment of fine, each of the

accused is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment

for fifteen days.

stands dismissed.

Cri.Appeal No. 97/99 & Anr.

and 14 stands disposed of as abated.

(VI) Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 to 13 to

surrender to their bail bonds for undergoing sentence.

(VII) The aforesaid convicted accused are

entitled to set off for the period for which they were

already behind the bars. Office to find out the period

for which the aforesaid accused are behind bars and

inform to concerned authorities accordingly.

Substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

(VIII) As the appeal is allowed, the purpose of

Criminal Revision Application is served and so, it is

disposed of accordingly.

      [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]                         [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]



 ssc/





 

 

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App

 

 

 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!