Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramrao Ambaji Phad & Ors on 11 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.193 OF 2000
The State of Maharashtra
through Padmakar @ Bandu s/o Angad
Phad, Age 20 years, Occ. Education,
R/o Dharmapuri, Parli Rural Police
Station, District Beed. ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Ramrao s/o Ambaji Phad,
Age 43 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Dharmapuri, Tq. Parli,
District Beed.
2. Yankati s/o Vaijnath Phad,
Age 35 years, Occ. and
R/o as above.
3. Navnath s/o Ramrao Phad,
Age 24 years, Occ. and
R/o as above.
4. Prabhakar s/o Trimbak Dahiphale,
Age 33 years, Occ. and
R/o as above.
5. Laxman s/o Manik Phad,
Age 36 years, Occ. and
R/o as above.
6. Maroti s/o Dnyanoba Phad,
Age 36 years, Occ. and
R/o as above.
7. Vaijnath s/o Ambaji Phad,
Age 65 years, Occ. and
R/o as above. ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for appellant
Shri S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 7
.....
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:57:14 :::
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
2
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : 11th July, 2017.
JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) :
1. This appeal is directed by State of Maharashtra
against the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case
No.83/1994. The respondent No.1 to 7 are original accused No.1
to 7 respectively.
2. From the memo of Criminal Revision Application
No.258/2000 which is filed by Navnath Ramrao Phad, who is son
of respondent No.1 in this Appeal, it appears that, respondent
No.1 Ramrao s/o Ambaji Phad died before filing the said revision.
3. Facts leading to institution of this appeal are that, the
respondent No.1 to 7 were prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 307, 338, 353, 147, 148 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in brief is that, in
the month of December 1993, fair of Goddess was organized at
village Dharmapuri. As per usual practice, on 29/12/1993,
competition of wrestling was arranged in the wrestling ground
prepared in the field property of Shri Babu Dashrath Phad which is
adjacent to Dharmapuri locality. Complainant Padmakar Angad
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
Phad was one of the competitor wrestler. The family of
complainant and accused persons carried enmity since last many
years on account of various reasons. Criminal cases were pending
against either parties. On the date of incident, i.e. 29/12/1993 in
the wrestling competition, complainant Padmakar Phad started
wrestling with the wrestler from village Badwani. In that fight,
Padmakar won the wrestling and when he was garlanded with the
currency note garland, some spectators gathered on the eastern
side of mob, started shouting that wrestling was not completed.
On the other hand, villagers from Dharmapuri and some other
persons started shouting from the side of winner Padmakar. On
that count, quarrel arose and accused No.6 Maroti assaulted
Maroti Dnyanoba Phad by footwear. There was a chaos and
bustling among the villagers and the mob gathered on the ground
of wrestling. That time, Mukinda Phad (deceased) and his son
Krushna Phad (P.W.6), Sukdeo Vithal Phad (P.W.5), Angad Vithal
Phad sustained injuries due to pelting of stones by accused No.1
to 7. The police staff present on the spot tried to intervene, but
they could not succeed. There was great chaos and heavy pelting
of stones. Mukinda Phad, his son Krushna Phad, Sukdeo and
others tried to run away towards village, that time, accused No.1
to 7 chased them and pelted stones towards them. Ultimately,
Circle P.I. H.N. Bhogle rushed on the spot with the additional
police force and he started caning and dispersed the mob. During
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
that incident, Mukinda Phad, Shrikrushna Phad, Sukdeo Phad,
Angad Phad, Padmakar Phad and police constable Shivaji Petkar
as well as C.P.I. Shri Bhogle sustained injuries. They were
referred for medical examination to Dr. Anant Deo (P.W.4) at
P.H.C., Dharmapuri. He provided first aid to the injured and
issued injury certificates (Exhs.62 to 72). On the same day,
Padmakar Angad Phad (P.W.2) approached C.P.I. Bhogle at
Brahmapuri and lodged F.I.R. (Exh.57), which was sent to Police
Station, Parli. P.S.I. Sayed Misbahullah (P.W.10) received F.I.R..
and conducted investigation of this case. Mukinda Phad and other
injured were referred to S.R.T.R. Hospital, Ambajogai. However,
condition of Mukinda Phad deteriorated and at last he succumbed
to his injuries on 1/2/1994. Dr. Goli (P.W.7) performed post
mortem examination of dead body of Mukinda Phad and opined
that the cause of death of Mukinda was due to head injury in the
form of scalp contusion, extra dual haematoma, brain contusion,
sub-dual haematoma and intra celebral haemorrhage with fracture
of skull vault and base. Accordingly, he issued provisional death
certificate (Exh.76) and finally post mortem notes (Exh.77). On
the basis of F.I.R., initially offences were registered under
Sections 147, 148, 353, 325, 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after death of Mukinda Phad,
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
was added.
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
3. During the course of investigation, spot panchanama
(Exh.60) was prepared an blood stained clothes of Mukinda Phad,
Govinda Phad and Sukhdeo Phad were seized under panchanama
(Exh.53 and 54). After completion of the investigation, charge
sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Ambajogai.
4. Offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this
case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ambajogai. Charge
(Exh.40) was framed against accused No.1 to 7 for the offence
punishable under Sections 147, 148 of the Indian Penal code and
under Sections 307, 338, 353, 302 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Defence of the
accused was of total denial.
6. After considering the evidence placed on record,
learned trial Court pleased to acquit accused No.1 to 7 of the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 307, 338, 353, 302 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this appeal arises.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that, the
prosecution examined eye witnesses including injured witnesses
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
and though the testimony of eye witnesses is corroborated by
medical evidence, learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the
accused persons.
8. On the other hand, learned defence counsel
supported the judgment passed by the trial Court pointing out
that in F.I.R. (Exh.57), the particular role played by particular
accused is not mentioned. He submitted that, because the mob
gathered on the spot to watch the wrestling competition, there
was no unlawful object of the assembly and no evidence is
available that the accused persons were the members of unlawful
assembly and in furtherance of object of their assembly they
killed Mukinda Phad or injured other witnesses. Contention of
the defence counsel is that, at the time of exchange of stone
pelting, there was chaos and to disperse the rioting mob, police
started cane charge, in the result, many persons sustained
injuries. The deceased was one of those injured persons. He
submitted that, the accused had no motive to commit murder of
Mukinda Phad.
9. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Out of these
witnesses, only Padmakar (P.W.2), Sukdeo (P.W.5), Krushna
(P.W.6) and C.P.I. Shri Bhogle (P.W.9) are the injured witnesses
as well as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Babu Phad (P.W.1)
has merely acted as panch witness of seizure of clothes of the
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
deceased and injured (Exhibits 53 and 54). Therefore, his
evidence does not carry material value. Even Laxman (P.W.3) is
only panch witness who was present at the time of preparation of
spot panchanama (Exh.60). From the spot panchanama
(Exh.60), it emerges that, about 15 small and large stones were
seized from the spot of the occurrence and only 2-3 stones were
stained with blood. However, C.A. report of those blood stained
stones is not placed on record to ascertain whose blood is found
on the stones lying on the spot. Therefore, the oral testimony of
Laxman (P.W.3) as well as spot panchanama (Exh.60) does not
carry any importance.
10. From the testimony of Padmakar Phad (P.W.2), it
emerges that, on the date and time of the occurrence in
wrestling competition at village Dharmapuri, he was wrestling
with one wrestler from Badwani and about 2500 spectators were
watching that competition. According to this witness, he won
that wrestling and at that time, some group amongst the mob
started shouting that the wrestling was not over. From the
testimony of this witness, it emerges that, accused No.6 Maroti
threw footwear on the person of Shivaji Phad and that time,
Mukinda Phad came on that spot and suggested that all should
go towards house and accordingly, when this witness, his father,
uncle Sukdeo and Shivaji Phad started towards the house, all
accused except accused No.6 came forward and started pelting
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
stones. Due to stone pelted by accused No.2, Yankati, Mukinda
Phad fell down and accused No.2 instigated by uttering that all
should be beaten. Thereafter, accused No.1 Ramrao, accused
No.3 Navnath, accused No.4 Prabhakar and accused No.5
Laxman as well as accused No.7 Vaijnath started pelting stones
towards Mukinda. When son of Mukinda namely Krushna Phad
tried to intervene by falling on the body of Mukinda, he also
sustained injuries. When Angad Phad tried to intervene, he
sustained injury. Even Krushna Phad and Sukdeo sustained
injuries on their head and forehead respectively. According to
this witness, Angad sustained injury on chest and this witness
sustained injury on the left side of his forehead on the upper
scale of his eye-brow. This witness clarified that Krushna
sustained injury due to stone pelted by accused No.2 Yankati,
Sukdeo sustained injury due to stone pelted by accused No.1
Ramrao and Angad sustained injury due to stone pelted by
accused No.2 Yankati and this witness sustained injury due to
stone pelted by accused No.3 Navnath. From the testimony of
this witness, it emerges that, thereafter police reached on the
spot and they had flown sticks in the air and thereby dispersed
the accused persons from the spot. This witness has proved his
report to one P.S.I. who was present at Grampanchayat office at
Dharmapuri (Exh.57).
11. It is to be noted that, after going through cross-
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
examination of this witness together with evidence of
investigating officer (P.W.10), it emerges that, the major portion
of the testimony of this witness regarding actual occurrence is
proved as material omission. This witness has contradicted his
previous statement before policy on every material particular.
Even the genesis of the occurrence i.e. throwing footwear by
accused No.6 towards Shivaji Phad and thereafter appearance of
Mukinda Phad on that spot is proved as omission. Therefore, due
to total variance in between statement of this wintess before the
Court and before the police, the testimony of this witness cannot
be treated as trustworthy to base the conviction.
. Even the testimony of so called witness Sukdeo Phad
(P.W.5) that when Mukinda Phad, Padmakar Phad and other
persons along with this witness started proceeding towards their
village, that time accused No.2 Yankati reached on the spot and
pelted stone on the head of Mukinda and accused No.1 Ramrao
injured this witness by stone, is proved as material omission.
The major portion of the testimony of this witness is in conflict
with the statement before the police. It is to be noted that, this
witness deposed that Krushna Phad (P.W.6) intervened and tried
to save his father by falling over his body. However, Krushna
Phad (P.W.6) though entered the witness box, nowhere deposed
that he fell over the body of his father and tried to save him. On
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
the other hand, this witness has brought on record different
theory that each accused came on the spot while running and the
injured particular witness. From the cross-examination of this
witness, it also emerges that, during the occurrence of the
incident, he did not try to save his father in any manner and
even he did not try to lift his father who was lying on the ground.
Thus, due to totally contradictory statement of this witness, we
hold that this witness is not trustworthy. On the other hand,
from his cross-examination, it emerges that, there are major
contradictions in his statement, which shakes the basic version of
this witness.
12. On the other hand, Circle Police Inspector Shri H.N.
Bhogle (P.W.9) who reached on the spot at about 3.00 p.m. and
saw that accused were pelting stones and, therefore, he used
police force to disperse the accused persons. This witness has
proved the F.I.R. (Exh.57) lodged by Padmakar Phad. However,
from his cross-examination, it emerges that, when he reached on
the spot, mob of about 2500 persons was present on the
wrestling ground and stones were coming on all sides. From his
cross-examination, it also emerges that, he also directed to use
sticks to the police force to disperse the mob. Thus, the picture
on the spot of occurrence becomes clear that there was heavy
stone pelting from all the sides on wrestling ground, and to
disperse the said mob, police force started caning charge. Even
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
from the cross-examination of medical officers Dr. Deo (P.W.4)
and Dr. Goli (P.W.7), it emerges that, injuries sustained by
injured and even by deceased are possible due to stick blows.
Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that injured persons
including deceased Mukinda sustained injuries due to stick blows
during caning by police or they sustained injuries during stone
pelting by either sides. In the circumstances, by no stretch of
imagination it can be said that, in furtherance of common object
of unlawful assembly and being member of that unlawful
assembly accused caused caused deadly injury to Mukinda Phad
or caused any type of hurt to other prosecution witnesses. In
fact, as per prosecution case itself accused persons, complainant
party and other villagers gathered on the spot to watch the
wrestling competition and there was no unlawful object of the
assembly. The dispute started in spur of moment, which resulted
bustling and chaos and exchange of stone pelting. Therefore,
nobody can be individually blamed for the injuries sustained by
deceased Mukinda Phad or the injured witnesses.
13. In the result, the conclusion arrived by learned trial
Court that prosecution failed to establish guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 147, 148 of the Indian
Penal Code or under Sections 353, 307, 338, 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is correct. By no stretch of
imagination it can be held that the view taken by learned trial
Cri. Appeal No.193/2000
Court is improbable view which calls for interference by this
appellate Court.
14. In the result, this appeal fails, deserves to be
dismissed. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No.193/2000 is dismissed.
(ii) Under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, respondents No.2 to 7 shall execute before
the trial Court bail bonds with sureties for the amount
of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each to appear
before the Supreme Court as and when notices are
issued to them in respect of any proceedings filed
against this judgment and the said bail bonds shall
remain in force for a period of six months from today.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (T.V. NALAWADE)
JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
