Ramu @ Rameshwar Ramkishan Aathve vs State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 4607 Bom

                                      {1}
                                                                 Crapl 239.13 F.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2013


Ishwar s/o Baliram Hude
Age : 71 years, Occu. Agril. &
Retired Militaryman,
R/o Ramnagar, Degloor Road,
Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.                             ...APPELLANT

       Versus

The State of Maharashtra                                ...RESPONDENT

                                    .....
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, senior counsel i/b Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, APP for Respondent-State

                                      WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2013

Laxman s/o Pundlik Suvarnakar,
Age : 75 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Kawthal, Tq. Deoni
Dist. Latur                                                ...APPELLANT


       Versus

1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through,
       Deoni Police Station.

2.     Rohidas s/o Sangram Konmare,
       Age : 48 years, Occu. Ex-serviceman,
       R/o Kavalkhed, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur

3.     Nabi Jainoddin Sheikh
       Age : 37 years, Occu. Agri.
       R/o Kawthal, Tq. Deoni,
       Dist. Latur.

4.     Shivadas s/o Ganpati Umate,
       Age : 48 years, Occu. Agriculture
       R/o Walandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.



 ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2017 00:21:54 :::
                                        {2}
                                                                 Crapl 239.13 F.odt

5.     Vishwanath s/o Ganpati Umate,
       Age : 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
       R/o Walandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.          ...RESPONDENTS
                                      .....
Mr. A. S. Shejwal, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. G. Karlekar, APP for Respondent-1
Mr.R.N. Dhorde, senior counsel h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 2 to 5
                                      .....

                                     WITH
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2014

The State of Maharashtra, Through
Police Station Deoni for complainant
Laxman Pundlik Savarnakar,
Age : 70 years, R/o Kawathal,
Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur                                      ...APPELLANT


       Versus

1.     Ishwar Baliram Hude,
       Age : 64 years, Occu. Retired
       Militaryman, R/o Kawathala,
       Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

2.     Rohidas s/o Sangram Konmare,
       Age : 48 years, Occu. Ex-serviceman,
       R/o Udgir

3.     Nabi Jainoddin Sheikh
       Age : 37 years, Occu. Agri.
       R/o Kawthal, Tq. Deoni,
       Dist. Latur.

4.     Shivadas s/o Ganpati Umate,
       Age : 48 years, Occu. Agriculture
       R/o Walandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

5.     Vishwanath s/o Ganpati Umate,
       Age : 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
       R/o Walandi, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.             ...RESPONDENTS

                                     .....
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, APP for Appellant.
Mr.R.N. Dhorde, senior counsel h/f Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent
Nos. 1 to 5


 ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2017 00:21:54 :::
                                        {3}
                                                                    Crapl 239.13 F.odt


                                          CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
                                                  K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 15th MARCH, 2017.

PRONOUNCED ON : 14th JULY, 2017.

JUDGMENT : ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)

1] Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction

under sections 302, 323 of Indian Penal Code and resultant sentence of

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default R.I. for 2

months, and, R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default R.I.

for 1 month; respectively, the appellant-accused Ishwar Baliram Hude has

filed appeal bearing No. 239 of 2013, whereas, the first informant Laxman

and prosecution/State both have preferred the appeals bearing No. 463 of

2013 and 664 of 2014 against the judgment and order of acquittal of accused

No. 2 to 5, under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323 read with 149 of the IPC.

These appeals emerge from one and the same judgment and order of

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur in Sessions Case No. 59

of 2009, therefore, we proceed to deal with these appeals together by this

common judgment.

2] The scenario of the prosecution case culled out in brief is that,

the ill-fated victim Shilavati was the daughter of first informant- Shri.

Laxman Pundlik Suvarnkar residence of village Kawthal, Tq. Deoni, Dist.

Latur. The daughter victim Shilavati was the divorcee and residing with

parents i.e. first informant Laxman and his wife Vimalbai. The first

{4} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

informant Laxman and appellant Ishwar Baliram Hude as well as Respondent-

accused Rohidas, Nabi Jainoddin and Shivdas all were familiar with each

other and on inimical terms due to dispute of land Gut no. 164 of village

Walandi. According to first informant Laxman, he was the owner and in

possession of contentious land Gut no. 164 whereas, appellant-accused

Ishwar, and respondent Rohidas were claiming the title and occupation of

land on the basis of document of registered sale deed. There were litigation

between them since the year 2005. The first informant Laxman also cast

allegation against appellant Ishwar of his involvement in money lending

business. He had filed complaints against appellant Ishwar and others for

their illegal activities of money lending business.

3] It has been alleged that on 20/06/2008, the first informant

Laxman, his wife Vimalbai and daughter Shilavati carried out the

agricultural operation in the contentious land Gut No. 164 of village Walandi.

Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m., the trio went to bed in the field. The victim

Shilavati and mother Vimalbai, both slept in front of the tin shed erected

temporarily in the field. The first informant Laxman went to sleep at some

distance from daughter and wife, fearing attack on the part of money

lenders. However, in the wee hours of dawn at about 4.30 a.m., the first

informant Laxman heard the screams of daughter Shilavati. He immediately

woke up and saw that the appellant-accused Ishwar and respondents

Rohidas, Nabi Jainoddin, Shivdas and Vishwanath assaulted his daughter

Shilavati with boulder, and on seeing him started running towards a

percolation tank located on the eastern side of the field. His wife Vimalbai

{5} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

also awaken at that time. The first informant Laxman made endeavour to

chase them but they all pelted the stones towards him and inflicted injuries

to his both legs, head etc. It has been asserted that the assailants were

intending to kill Laxman, but, they attacked victim Shilavati mistakenly

under the belief that first informant Laxman had slept there. The victim

Shilavati received fatal injuries on her head and face.

4] The wife of Laxman - Vimalbai visited to the Police of Deoni

police station and filed the report that her daughter and husband was beaten

up by the appellant Ishwar and his three accomplices on account of disputes

of agricultural land. Police registered the non-cognizable case bearing No.

83 of 2008 for the offences under section 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and referred

the informant Vimalbai to Magistrate under section 155 of Cr.P.C. However,

immediately thereafter the appellant Ishwar Hude and respondent-accused

Rohidas Konmare filed the report to the Police that they received the

information that first informant Laxman, his wife and others killed their

daughter and kept her dead body in the tin shed erected in their field. The

Police of Deoni, Police station took the entry of the report in the station

diary and rushed to the spot to take stock of situation. The Police personnel

noticed the victim Shilavati with bleeding injuries on her head. She was not

in condition to speak. Police personnel drawn the panchanama of injuries

of victim Shilavati and escorted her to Primary Health Center, Walandi. The

concern Medical Officer provided first aid treatment and advised to take her

to the Government Hospital at Udgir for better medical treatment.

Accordingly, the injured Shilavati was shifted to the District Hospital Udgir.

{6} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

The concerned Medical Officer took efforts to resuscitate the injured

Shilavati. Unfortunately, on the very same day at about 07.30 p.m. she

succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, the father Laxman visited to the Deoni

Police Station and filed the First Information Report. He blamed appellant-

accused Ishwar and his accomplices, namely, Rohidas, Nabi-Jainnuddin,

Shivdas and Vishwnath for the death of his daughter Shilavati. Pursuant to

F.I.R. of first informant Laxman, Police of Deoni Police Station, District Latur,

registered the crime bearing No. 56 of 2008 under section 143, 323, 302 of

the I.P.C. and set the penal law in motion.

5] I.O. visited to the scene of occurrence and drawn the

panchnama of the spot. He recovered the blood stained earth, simple earth,

one boulder around 2 Kgs. weight and one Shawl, both stained with blood,

broken pieces of bangles etc. from the spot of incident. He recorded the

statement of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. I.O.

apprehended the accused for the sake of investigation. Meanwhile, Police

dealt with the mortal remains of deceased Shilavati and drawn the inquest

panchnama. The dead-body of victim Shilavati was referred to Medical

Officer for autopsy to ascertain the exact cause of death. Medical Experts

conducted the post-mortem on her dead body of victim

Shilavati and opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock owing

to fracture of scull and nasal bone, etc. I.O. collected relevant documents

of P.M.Report. The seized muddemal, viscera and blood sample of the victim

were referred to the Forensic Lab for analysis. I.O. collected the C.A.

Report. After completion of the investigation, I.O. preferred the

{7} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections

143, 147, 148, 302 and 323 read with 149 of the I.P.C.

6] The learned Magistrate after receipt of charge-sheet and

investigation papers under section 173 of Cr.P.C. registered the proceedings

bearing R.C.C.No. 63 of 2009 and transmitted the matter to the concerned

Sessions Court for trial of the accused within the ambit of law, as the

offences levelled against them, were exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions.

7) The learned Sessions Judge, after compliance of procedural

formalities, framed the charges against the accused. The substance of

accusation were read over and explained to each of the accused in

vernacular, but, they pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home guilt of

accused, prosecution adduced the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Manoj Uttamrao

Hude (Exh.38), PW-2 Sanjay Ramrao Dongargawe (Exh.42), PW-3 Laxman

Pundlik Suvarnakar (Exh.53), PW-4 Laxman Hariba Bargalle (Exh.69), PW-5

Madhav Dhondiba Bochare (Exh.65), PW-6 Govind Vithalrao Suvarnakar

(Exh.67), PW-7 Dr. Smbhaji Vishwanath Salunke (Exh.71), PW-8 Honaji

Bhujangrao Warane (Exh.76), PW-9 Anwarkhan s/o. Umardaraj Khan (Exh.87).

The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of accused

under sections 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating

circumstances and claimed their innocence and false implication in this case.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the oral and circumstantial

evidence adduced on record and concluded that the appellant-accused

{8} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

Ishwar Baliram Hude is guilty for the offence punishable under section 302,

323 of the IPC and accordingly imposed the punishment as referred above.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, did not come across with

sufficient evidence for adverse inference against rest of the accused.

Therefore, they all were acquitted for the charges pitted against them. The

legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order of learned trial

court is under challenge in the present appeals.

8] Learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde appearing for appellant-

accused Ishwar scathingly assailed that the evidence of key witnesses PW-3

Laxman and court witness Vimalbai is suspicious, dubious and not believable

one. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses.

Their conduct and demeanor at the relevant time appears doubtful and not

free from blemish. Learned senior counsel explained that, these witnesses

did not attribute specific overt-act or participation of each of the assailants

in the alleged incident of assault. These witnesses woke up after the alleged

assault on victim Shilavati. Therefore, they did not receive any opportunity

to witness the incident. The PW-3 Laxman did not state that he had chased

the assailants and at that time he was assaulted by pelting stones. According

to the PW-3 Laxman, the assailants, after seeing him awakened from the

bed, started running away towards eastern side of the field. The learned

senior counsel Shri Dhorde asserted that, when the assailants came to kill

PW-3 Lxman, in such circumstances, there was no reason for the assailants to

escape from the spot after seeing him. He submits that, the entire story of

{9} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

the alleged incident propounded on behalf of PW-3 Laxman appears

fabricated and concocted one with ill-intention to implicate the accused in

this case. He harped on the circumstances that, these witnesses are related

and interested witnesses. The prosecution did not examine any independent

witness to corroborate their version for adverse inference against accused.

The spot was located in the field abutting to road leading to Kauthala

village. There were houses of adjoining land owners nearby the alleged spot

of incident. It is also brought on record in cross-examination of these

witnesses that, passer-by and on lookers were thronged at the spot, but no

independent witness came forward to support the prosecution case.

9] Learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde criticized that the conduct

and demeanor of PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai appears to be abnormal

and against the normal human behaviour at the relevant time. They did

not take any endeavour to shift the daughter victim Shilavati to hospital for

medical treatment at the earliest. But, they allowed victim Shilavati remain

with serious bleeding injuries uptil 5.00 p.m., when police arrived at the

spot for panchnama of her injuries. Learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde also

pointed out that first informant Laxman did not disclose about the alleged

incident to the police and maintained silence uptil lodging the F.I.R. on

21-06-2008 in the night hours at about 9.00 p.m. There was delay in

lodging F.I.R. The circumstances created doubt about the trustworthiness

and credibility of the evidence of these interested witnesses. The learned

senior counsel Shri Dhorde explained the circumstances about litigation in

{10} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

between appellant and PW-3 Laxman on account of land dispute. He submits

that, the PW-3 embroiled the appellant falsely in this case to derive benefit

in the litigation. The spot of incident was intentionally shown located in the

contentious land Gat No. 164 with purported motivation to prove his

possession over it. The learned senior counsel Shri Dhorde drawn our

attention towards the recent proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C.

initiated against PW-3 Laxman. He contends that these circumstances would

show hostile atmosphere in between appellant and PW-3 Laxman.

Therefore, learned senior counsel fervidly contends that the evidence of PW-

3 Laxman and court witness Vimalbai is required to be discarded. In support

of his arguments, he kept reliance on the judgments in the matter of (1)

Bacchu Narain Sngh Vs. Naresh Yadav and others AIR 2004 SC 3055, (2)

Rajeevan and another vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 (3) Harijana

Thirupala and ors vs. Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad,

AIR 2002 SC 2821 (4) Ram Kumar Pande vs. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC

1026, (5) Babu ram and others Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 1260, (6)

Deepak Kumar vs. Ravi Virmani and others (2002) 2 SCC 737 (7) Kunju

Muhammad Alias Khumani and another vs. State of Kerala (2004)9 SCC

193, (8) Sunil Kundu and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others,

(2013) 4 SCC 422.

10] Per contra, learned counsel Shri Shejul appearing for First

Informant Laxman being victim, in view of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. vehemently

submits that the evidence of eye witness' account on record is sufficient to

{11} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

nail the accused in this case. They were inimical to the accused on account

of land dispute. PW-3 Laxman had an apprehension of attack from the

accused who were indulged in the money lending business. The assailants

were intending to eliminate the first informant Laxman but they attacked

victim Shilavati in mistake. The assailants were under the belief that the

first informant PW- 3 Laxman had slept there covering his face with shawl.

According to learned counsel, PW-3 Laxman also sustained injuries on his

both legs and head due to assault by the accused with stones. The injuries

received to PW-3 Laxman indicate his presence on the scene of occurrence.

The evidence of witness Vimalbai strengthen the version of PW-3 Laxman on

the material aspect. There are minor discrepancies and contradictions in

their evidence but same are not fatal to the prosecution case. The spouses

did not seek any help from the villagers or the relatives, that does not mean

that their conduct was abnormal and it would affect the veracity of their

evidence. The evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai establish the

presence of the accused, five in number at the spot, while assaulting victim

Shilavati. The assailants attacked Shilavati in prosecution of common object

of unlawful assembly. Therefore, they all are guilty under section 302 read

with 149 of the I.P.C. for murder of victim Shilavati. He fervidly urged to

allow the appeal and upset the impugned order of acquittal of respondent-

accused. He prayed to convict all the accused for the charges pitted against

them. He relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of

(1) Sham @ Raju R. Anpur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997

Cri.L.J. 581, (2) Raj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P., 2002 Cri.L.J.

{12} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

2918, (3) Mallinath Gurusiddhappa Birajdar and others Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2011 (4) Bom C. R. (Cri) 1, (4) Mallikarjun

Ragati Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006, Cri. L.J. 4298, (5) Dalip Singh Vs.

State of Panjab, 1997 Cri.L.J. 3647 (S.C.), (6) Ram Gulam Chaudhury and

others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 2842, (7) G. Parshwanath Vs.

State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 2914.

11] Learned APP also stepped into the shoe of learned counsel Shri

Shejwal and submits that the impugned findings of the learned trial court for

acquittal of the accused are erroneous, illegal and contrary to the provisions

of law. Therefore, he prayed to upset the impugned judgment and order

and accused be punished according to the provisions of law.

12] We have given anxious consideration to the arguments

canvassed on behalf of both sides. We have also delved into the attending

circumstances as well as oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on

record. We find much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of learned

senior counsel Shri Dhorde, appearing for appellant Ishwar and others. In

view of the mode and tenor of evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wife

Vimalbai, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the findings of

conviction against appellant Ishwar expressed by the learned trial court.

Moreover, the conclusion of acquittal of rest of the accused for the charges

pitted against them does not warrant any interference.

{13} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

13] At the threshold, we prefer to deal with the medical evidence

of PW-7 Dr. Sambhaji Salunke. He was the Medical Officer in the Primary

Health Center, Hasegaon, Tahsil Ausa, District Latur. He accompanied with

his associate Dr. Ujwala Jadhav conducted the autopsy, on the mortal

remains of deceased Shilavati. While external examination, they noticed

contused lacerated wounds (CLW) on the right parieto temporal region, as

well as on left eye-brow, left cheek, nose, fore-arms, etc. The Medical

Expert came across with multiple broken fracture of left maxillary bone and

fracture to the skull. There were internal injuries to the skull and face

corresponding with the external injuries. The Medical Experts classified the

injuries sustain to victim Shilavati as "Grievous and sufficient to cause

death". The evidence of Medical Expert candidly proved that, the victim

Shilavati met with an homicidal death. PW-7 Dr. Salunke produced the post-

mortem report on record (Exh.72). In the cross-examination, PW-7 Dr.

Salunke stated that in case the medical treatment would have been received

to the victim Shilavati at the earliest, the possibility of her survival could not

be ruled out. Whatever that may be, ultimately it seems that the victim

Shilavati succumbed to injuries which were caused by hard and blunt object

and her death was homicidal in nature.

14] The most contiguous issue to be determined in this matter is, as

to whether the accused Ishwar and his accomplices were the author of the

injuries sustained to victim Shilavati resulting into her death, and thereby

responsible for her death. It is not put in dispute that the family of first

{14} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

informant Laxman and the accused were familiar with each other being

residents of same locality as well as having landed property within the

neighbourhood of the village Walandi and Deoni. It is an admitted fact that

the alleged crime of murder of victim Shilavati has an chequered history of

litigations in between first informant Laxman and the appellant-accused.

Obviously, they all were on inimical terms with each other. There was

hostile atmosphere and animosity amongst them. In such backdrop, we

proceed to evaluate the guilt of the accused as alleged by the prosecution.

15] In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution

primarily kept reliance on the evidence of first informant - PW-3 Laxman and

his wife Vimalbai. PW-3 Laxman deposed that, victim Shilavati was his

daughter. The incident occurred on 20-06-2008 in the field Gat No. 164 of

village Deoni. At the relevant time, he accompanied with his wife Vimalbai

and daughter victim Shilavati were residing in the tin-shed erected in the

field. On the day of incident, i.e. on 20-06-2008, in the night they all went

to bed in the field. The daughter victim Shilavati and wife Vimalbai slept in

front of the tin-shed, whereas, he himself went to sleep at some distance

from the wife and daughter in the field fearing the threats of appellant

Ishwar. First informant PW-3 Laxman further stated that, in the wee hours of

morning at about 4.30 a.m., he heard screams of the daughter Shilavati.

Therefore, he woke up and saw that five persons were assaulting his

daughter Shilavati by stones. His wife Vimalbai also awakened from bed.

According to PW-3 Laxman, on seeing him assailants started running towards

{15} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

eastern side of his land. While running away from the spot, the assailants

flung stones towards him and inflicted injuries to his both legs and head.

First informant PW-3 Laxman deposed that, the assailants were intending to

kill him, but attacked his daughter Shilavati in mistake, under the belief

that, he had slept there. His daughter Shilavati received serious bleeding

injuries on her head, face and ears, etc.,. He escorted injured daughter

Shilavati at Government Hospital Walandi and thereafter, she was shifted to

Government Hospital Udgir. But, she died at about 7.30 p.m. in the hospital.

Thereafter, he visited to Deoni Police Station and filed F.I.R. (Exh.54).

16] The evidence of witness Vimalbai is available on record for

appreciation. She was examined as court witness in this case. It is to be

noted that, at the fag end of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that

the examination of the Vimalbai, wife of PW-3 Laxman, was essential for the

just and proper decision of the case. Therefore, the witness Vimalbai, wife

of first informant PW-3 Laxman was summoned under section 311 of the

Cr.P.C. for evidence in this case. While examination on oath, the court

witness Vimalbai deposed that, on the day of incident i.e. 20-06-2008, she

accompanied with husband PW-3 Laxman and daughter Shilavati, carried out

the agricultural operations and in the night hours, they went to sleep in the

field. She herself and daughter Shilavati slept in front of the tin shed,

whereas, her husband Laxman went to sleep at some distance from them.

The witness Vimalbai stated that, on the following day i.e. on 21-06-2008 at

about 4.30 a.m. after hearing screams of daughter Shilavati, she as well as

{16} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

her husband woke up and saw that, her daughter was asleep covering her

face with shawl of her husband Laxman. She also witness that, the

assailants, five in number, including appellant Ishwar, respondents - Rohidas,

Nabi, Vishwanath, Shivdas, all were assaulting her daughter with stones at

her head and face. She watched the incident in moon light. The witness

Vimalbai and her husband raised hue and cry for help. Thereafter, the

assailants started running towards percolation tank on eastern side of the

land. Her husband Laxman attempted to chase them. But, the assailants

attacked him by pelting stones and inflected injuries on his legs and head.

The court witness Vimalbai further added that, no one else came to help

them. Her husband told her to go to the Police Station at Deoni and file

complaint. Accordingly, she came to Deoni Police Station at about 10.00

a.m. and verbalized the incident to the concerned police. However, the

police made her to sit in the police station and at about 4.00 p.m. they

obtained her thumb impression on the blank paper. She had disclosed the

names of all five assailants in her report to the police. Thereafter, the

police informed that her daughter Shilavati was taken to the Government

Hospital at Udgir. Therefore, she came to Udgir and saw her daughter

writhing in agony in the hospital. She was not in a condition to speak. At

last, Doctor declared her daughter dead at about 7.30 p.m.

17] Prosecution adduced the evidence of PW-2 Sanjay Dongergave

to prove the spot panchnama. The P.W-5 Madhav Bochre was the panch for

panchnama of injuries of witness Shilavati. The PW-6 Gopal was the panch

{17} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

to inquest panchnama. Prosecution also examined PW-4 Laxman Bargade,

Jeep Driver, who carried the injured to Government Hospital at Walandi and

later on to Udgir for medical treatment. PW-1 Dr. Hude produced the injury

certificate of first informant PW-3 Laxman. PW-8 and PW-9 are the police

personnel, who conducted the investigation into the crime.

18] The intense scrutiny of the entire oral and circumstantial

evidence adduced on record reveals that, the entire edifice of the

prosecution case is rest on the evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wife

Vimalbai. At the inception, it is to be borne in mind that first informant

PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai, both are interested and related

witnesses in this case. In view of the chequered history of litigation since

long, the inference can be drawn that these witnesses would get benefit

from the result of the prosecution seeing accused persons punished. They

were inimical to the accused, following land dispute. The prosecution was

reluctant to examine the witness Vimalbai in this case. The prosecution also

opposed to call the witness Vimalbai under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for her

examination before the Sessions Court. But, the learned trial court found it

imperative to summon the witness Vimalbai for her evidence before the

Court to ascertain the truth. In such circumstances, the evidence of these

witnesses requires strict scrutiny. However, if the presence of these

witnesses at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted, and their evidence

is found consistent with surrounding circumstances and probability of the

case, it can be a good foundation for conviction of the accused for the

{18} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

charges pitted against them. In short, the evidence of these witnesses is

required to be analyzed with great care and caution.

19] PW-3 Laxman was the first informant, who filed the FIR and set

the criminal law in motion against the appellant-accused. In his evidence, it

has brought on record that, in the wee hours of morning, on 21-06-2008 at

about 4.30 a.m. he heard the screams of daughter Shilavati. He woke up

and saw that the assailants were attacking his daughter with stones, but on

seeing him, the assailants started running away from the spot. The

assailants also pelted stones towards the first informant PW-3 Laxman and

inflicted injuries on his both legs and head. If the spot panchanama (Exh.43)

is taken into consideration, it would reveal that there was only one boulder

around 2 Kgs. weight smeared with blood on the spot of alleged incident.

The police recovered blood stained shawl, broken pieces of bangles, earth

stained with blood and simple earth, as well as boulder from the spot under

panchanama. It is discernible from the nature of injuries received to victim

Shilavati that the injuries caused to her were owing to impact of single blow

of boulder having 2 Kg. weight recovered from the spot. There were no

other injuries noticed from the dead body of victim Shilavati except at her

head and face. If she would have been attacked by five assailants at a time

with stones and boulder, the possibility of multiple serious injuries to victim

Shilavati including crush injuries could not be ruled out. PW-7 Dr. Salunke, in

his cross-examination, explained that the injuries to fore-arm and knees of

victim Shilavati would possible while dragging injured from one place to

{19} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

another. At this juncture, it is to be appreciated that PW-3 Laxman, in his

cross-examination stated that due to sunlight his daughter was taken inside

the shed. In such attempt, injuries to her fore-arm and knees could be

possible while shifting her in the shed for protection from the sunlight.

There are no allegations that the assailants dragged his daughter at the time

of alleged incident. PW-3 Laxman also did not attribute overt act and active

participation of each and every assailant while assaulting his daughter at the

time of alleged incident. These circumstances are not compatible with the

hypothesis that the victim Shilavati was attacked by five assailants at a time

with stones and boulder. Therefore, it is doubtful that the allegations

nurtured on behalf of PW-3 Laxman in his FIR against the accused for the

incident of assault resulting into serious injuries to his daughter, are

trustworthy and believable one.

20] PW-3 Laxman further deposed that assailants were intending to

kill him at the time of alleged incident, but by mistake, they attacked his

daughter under the belief that he had slept there. He further added that

after hearing the screams of his daughter, he woke up and watched the

spectacle of assaulting his daughter by the assailants. But, on seeing him,

the assailants made their escape good from the spot. He had also stated that

while running away the assailants pelted the stones towards him and

inflicted injuries to his both legs and head. In view of attending

circumstances on record, it is strange to appreciate this version of PW-3

Laxman that the assailants had an intention to eliminate him, but they

{20} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

assaulted victim Shilavati in mistake under the belief that PW-3 Laxman had

slept there, covering his face with shawl. These circumstances do not

permit to apply doctrine of transfer of malice to bring the act of assailants

within the purview of section 301 of the I.P.C. We are completely at our

wit's end that when the motive of assailants was to kill PW-3 Laxman, then

for what reason the assailants started running away from the spot, on seeing

him awaken from the bed; on the contrary, it was the best opportunity for

the assailants to complete their task by attacking PW-3 Laxman in wee hours

of the morning on the day of incident. It is preposterous to appreciate the

version of PW-3 Laxman that, on seeing him the assailants made their escape

good from the spot. The circumstances also caused damage to the

credibility of the evidence of PW-3 Laxman for adverse inference against the

accused.

21] The witness Vimalbai deposed that her husband PW-3 Laxman

attempted to chase the assailants / accused. But, they pelted stones and

caused injuries to him. However, PW-3 Laxman did not state about his

endeavour to chase the assailants, and, at that time they pelted stones

towards him. It is to be noted that, the accused/assailants had no grudge,

rancour or malice toward victim Shilavati. There was no reasonable cause

for the assailants to onslaught her. According to prosecution, the object of

unlawful assembly was to kill PW-3 Laxman. But, the members of unlawful

assembly, instead of attacking PW-3 Laxman escaped from the spot on seeing

him. It would hard to believe that the assailants had an intention to kill PW-

{21} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

3 Laxman, but they attacked victim Shilavati in mistake. It remains a

conundrum that, even after seeing PW-3 Laxman awaken from the bed, at

wee hours of morning, for what reason, the assailants allow to spare him

and instead of attacking him, made their escape good from the spot. The

occurrence of alleged incident of assault as projected by PW-3 Laxman

itself found suspicious and dubious one.

22] In view of attending circumstances, the conduct and demeanor

of PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai seems unnatural and against the

human behavioural pattern. PW-3 Laxman in his cross-examination, deposed

that, on the day of incident in between 11-00 a.m. to 12-00 noon, near

about 20 persons visited to him, but they did not help him. According to

panch witness PW-5 Mahadu, while preparing panchnama (Exh.64) of the

injuries of victim there were near about 200 villagers thronged at the spot.

The police also arrived for panchnama, but PW-3 Laxman or his wife Vimalbai

did not disclose about the alleged incident of assault by the accused.

Moreover, no one else from the vicinity came forward to depose about the

alleged incident of assault on the part of accused. It is also brought on

record that there were houses of adjoining land owners in the field nearby

the spot of incident. The road leading from village Walandi was a public

thoroughfare having traffic of auto rickshaw carrying passengers, but, the

prosecution did not examine any independent witness to strengthen the

version of related and interested witnesses in this case. The prosecution

examined PW-4 Laxman Bargale, Jeep Driver, who carried the injured

{22} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

Shilavati from the spot of incident to Government Hospital Walandi, and

thereafter, to Udgir. But, he had also not stated about the cause of injuries

to victim Shilavati, nor PW-3 Laxman disclosed him about the alleged

incident. The absence of evidence of independent witness proved fatal to

the prosecution case.

23] The evidence of court witness Vimalbai also found suspicious

and do not inspire confidence. The court witness Vimalbai was one of the

eye witness of the incident. But, the prosecution was reluctant to examine

her and attempted to suppress the genesis of the crime. Eventually, the

concerned trial Court summoned her under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. as a

court witness for adducing evidence. However, while appreciating the

evidence of court witness Vimalbai, it seems that, the learned trial Court

committed error in appreciating her evidence in it's proper prospective. The

learned trial Judge overlooked or glossed over the serious pit-falls and

infirmities in the version of spouses i.e. court witness Vimalbai and her

husband PW-3 Laxman. The conduct and demeanor of the spouses since

beginning appear suspicious and doubtful. The court witness Vimalbai at

the relevant time was asleep abutting to victim Shilavati. She stated that,

on hearing screams of her daughter, she woke up and saw that, accused, five

in number, were assaulting her daughter with stones at her head and face.

She recognized the assailants in moon light. It is evident from these

circumstances that, the witness Vimalbai had an opportunity to recognize

the accused as assailants who were five in number. But, when Vimalbai

{23} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

visited to the police station for lodging report (Exh.83) about the incident,

she spill the beans that the incident occurred at about 7.00 a.m. and the

accused Ishwar as well as his three accomplices had beaten up her daughter

and husband on account of land dispute. The mode and tenor of the report

constrained the concerned police to register N.C. No. 83 of 2008 under

section 323, 504 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The report of the witness

Vimalbai (Exh.83) was not relates to commission of cognizable offence and

therefore it cannot be treated as FIR under section 154 of Cr.P.C. merely

because it was received to police first in point of time. But, the report

(Exh.83) would be appreciated to corroborate or contradict the version of

witness Vimalbai under section 157 or 145 of the Evidence Act. It has

brought on record that she recognized the assailants in moon light and they

were five in number. Therefore, the report (Exh.83), she gave at that time,

should contain details about accused, their weapon and injuries caused to

her daughter. But, the alleged report does not contain all these details nor

she given names of assailants and their overt-acts.

24] The act of omission to disclose the detail particulars of the

crime as well as names of all assailants at the earliest to the police by the

eye-witness Vimalbai, devastated the gravity of the allegations nurtured

against the accused. It would also affect the probabilities of the alleged

incident. The court witness Vimalbai ventured to make allegations that the

police made her to sit in the police station uptill 4.00 p.m. and later-on,

obtained her thumb impression on the blank paper. We find painful to

{24} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

accept these allegations against public servants. There are no

circumstances on record sufficient to create doubt about the integrity of the

police at the relevant time in this case.

25] It is also pertinent to note that, after registration of N.C. report

of the witness Vimalbai, the appellant-accused Ishwar and Rohidas filed the

report to the police of Deoni Police Station and passed on the information

that, while they were returning from Aurangabad to Udgir by S.T.Bus, they

came to know that PW-3 Laxman and his associate killed their daughter and

brought her dead body in their disputed land Gat No. 164 of village Deoni.

The police of Deoni Police Station took the entry of the said report in the

Station Diary and rushed to the scene of occurrence to take stock of

situation. PW-5 Shri Bochare, panch witness, stated about the panchnama of

injuries (Exh.66) to victim Shilavati, drawn by the police at the scene of

occurrence, and thereafter, she was escorted to the hospital for medical

treatment.

26] It is worth to mention that, since occurrence of the incident, in

the morning at about 4.30 a.m. till evening at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. the

injured Shilavati was, lying at the alleged spot of incident, in field Gat No.

164. However, after preparation of injury panchnama (Exh.66) by the police

she was shifted to the hospital for medical treatment. The inaction on the

part of PW-3 Laxman to shift his injured daughter Shilavati to hospital, at the

earliest caused serious dent in the prosecution case. It would smack

{25} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

something fishy about the anxiety and ill intention of the PW-3 Laxman to

embroil the accused taking umbrage of land dispute. There was also

preventive action under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. initiated against PW-3

Laxman prior to alleged incident. These circumstances are not only

consistent with the innocence of the accused but inconsistent with their

guilt as alleged by the prosecution.

27] There were allegations about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. in

this case. The alleged incident occurred at about 4.30 a.m. in the morning

of 21-06-2008, but PW-3 Laxman lodged the F.I.R. on the very same day at

about 9.00 p.m. and it would fatal to trustworthiness and veracity of the

version of PW-3 Laxman. It is true that, since beginning, the accused are

clamouring about the suspicious conduct and demeanor of the eye witnesses

PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai. They did not seek help from the

neighbourers. The alleged spot of incident was located in the field Gat No.

164 of village Deoni. There were houses of adjoining land-owners nearby the

spot of incident. The public thoroughfare leading to village Kauthala was also

abutting to land Gat No. 164. The auto-rickshaws carrying passengers used

to ply on the said road. But, there was no endeavour on the part of PW-3

Laxman and his wife Vimalbai to approach to the police for lodging FIR about

the incident at the earliest. PW-3 Laxman remained at the alleged spot of

incident through out the day of incident. He sent his wife Vimalbai to lodge

the report of incident to the police. According to prosecution, Vimalbai was

illiterate and rustic lady. The PW-3 Laxman had an experience about court

{26} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

litigation and conversant with legal provisions. He would have lodge detail

FIR of the crime to set penal law in motion. There was no reason for PW-3

Laxman to send his wife to the police station to lodge report. It was not

unfurled that why the PW-3 Laxman did not visit to the police station at the

earliest to ventilate grievances against accused and remained idle for a

entire day in the field with victim Shilavati.

28] The court witness Vimalbai stated in her cross-examination that

while going to the police station, she met with police constable Shri. Rokde,

who was on duty in the area of alleged spot of incident. She did not disclose

him about the incident. The police personnel arrived at the scene of

occurrence in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. for panchnama of injuries of

victim Shilavati, at that time also PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai did not

take efforts to ventilate grievances against the accused for the alleged

assault resulting into serious injuries to their daughter Shilavati. It has

brought on record that, the denizens thronged at the spot and they were

insisting to take the injured to hospital prior to injury panchnama (Exh.66),

but PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai did not ask the police to take injured

to the hospital. The silence and reticence on the part of PW-3 Laxman and

his wife Vimalbai found detrimental to the prosecution case.

29] Undisputedly, the F.I.R. can be used to corroborate or

contradict the maker thereof under section 157 or 154 of the Evidence Act

(1) to impeach the credibility of the maker if examined as witness, (2) to

{27} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

show that involvement of accused was not afterthought, (3) to use it as

evidence as to conduct of informant under section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is

the rule of law that, FIR is the vital and valuable piece of evidence and on

account of delay, it would not only gets bereft of the advantage of

spontaneity, but danger creeps in of introduction of coloured version, or

exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and

consultation. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of F.I.R. to police

in respect of commission of crime is to obtain early information regarding

the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the names of actual

assailants, and the role played by each of them, etc. In case, there was

delay in F.I.R., it should be satisfactorily explained and if it is not properly

explained, it would be unsafe to base conviction on the basis of this delayed

F.I.R. In the matter in hand, there was colossal delay of more than 10 to 12

hours to lodge FIR since occurrence of alleged incident. Obviously, it would

create doubt about truthfulness of the evidence of PW-3 Laxman and his wife

Vimalbai. There was no plausible explanation on the part of prosecution

witnesses for delay in lodging the FIR. The conduct and demeanor of key

witness of the prosecution appears suspicious and against the human

behavioural pattern. If in reality the alleged incident would have taken

place in the wee hours of morning, PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai

should have ventilated the grievance against the accused to the onlookers,

denizens, passerby, etc., Moreover, there were no efforts to shift their

injured daughter Shilavati to the hospital for medical treatment at the

earliest. They maintained silence uptill 9.00 p.m. and thereafter the PW-3

{28} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

Laxman blamed the assailants for injuries sustained to his daughter Shilavati

for the first point of time in his FIR (Exh.54). Taking recourse of the legal

guidelines delineated in the cases (1) Bacchu Narain Sngh Vs. Naresh

Yadav and others AIR 2004 SC 3055, (2) Rajeevan and another vs. State

of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 1813 (3) Harijana Thirupala and ors vs. Public

prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad, AIR 2002 SC 2821, we are of

the opinion that there is serious doubt about the occurrence of alleged

incident of assault, resulting into fatal injuries to victim Shilavati.

30] The prosecution much more gave emphasis on the legal issue of

motive of the crime. There were litigation on account of land dispute in

between the PW-3 Laxman and accused. Taking umbrage of the land

dispute, the accused with motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman attacked his

daughter in mistake. It is imperative to appreciate that the motive is double

edged weapon, which cuts both ways, helping or harming, both the

prosecution and the defence. It is to be noted that the motive cannot by

itself sustain a criminal charge although proof of motive may lend assistance

to the evidence with regard to the actual occurrence; nor an offender can be

set free simply for want of motive in the prosecution case. Where there is

some motive to commit crime but no reliable evidence is available to

connect any of the accused with the alleged crime, the accused persons

would entitle to be acquitted for the charges pitted against them.

Obviously, the motive is something which prompts a man to form an

intention to commit offence. Motive is the reason which induces or activates

{29} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

a man to do a certain act. In the instant case, we would reiterate that the

alleged crime has an chequered history of litigation. Prior to the alleged

incident of assault on victim Shilavati, there were complaint against accused

under Money Laundering Act as well as there was a proceeding under Section

107 of Cr.P.C. initiated against PW-3 Laxman at the behest of appellant

Ishwar. These circumstances are sufficient for drawing an inference that

there was hostile atmosphere amongst the accused. The PW-3 Laxman and

accused were at logger-heads following the land dispute. According to

prosecution, the accused with a motive to eliminate PW-3 Laxman in mistake

attacked his daughter. As mentioned supra, the motive is a double edged

weapon and when there existed serious enmity between the parties, the

motive for accused to kill first informant Laxman and motive for first

informant Laxman to implicate the accused was equally balanced; then the

court has to look to surrounding circumstances to find out the truth. It is to

be noted that the accused came forward with a specific defence that on

account of animosities, PW-3 Laxman embroiled them falsely in this case. In

view of attending circumstances on record and suspicious nature of

evidence of the PW-3 Laxman discussed above, we find substance in the

defence propounded on behalf of the accused. We would reiterate that

where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to prove the crime is not

satisfactory even strong motive cannot furnish the lacuna in the prosecution

case. The factor of motive though relevant is required to be considered

alongwith rest of the evidence and it cannot be treated as evidence of crime

itself. Therefore, mere enmity in between the accused and PW-3 Laxman

{30} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

following land dispute, would not be a decisive factor to draw adverse

inference against the accused in this case.

31] In catena of cases, the Honourable Apex Court observed that,

different persons react differently under given circumstances. It is difficult

to lay down a hard and fast rule, as to how and in what manner a person

would react and in order to achieve his motive, he could go to what extent

in the commission of crime under particular circumstances. It is not possible

to measure up the extent of his feelings, desire so as to know, what

compelled him to commit a particular act. At this juncture, the

circumstances constrained us to appreciate the report filed on behalf of

accused Ishwar and Rohidas to the police (Exh.84) prior to F.I.R. Pursuant to

which, the police reached to the scene of occurrence to take stock of

situation and drawn the panchnama of the injuries of victim Shilavati. This

report pointed out the needle of suspicion towards PW-3 Laxman and his wife

Vimalbai themselves for the injuries sustained to his daughter. These

circumstances also require to be considered as mitigating circumstances

favouring the accused.

32] Learned counsel Shri Shejwal, relied on the judicial

pronouncement in the matter of Rajkumar and others vs. State of UP

(cited supra) and submits that strained relations in between PW-3 Laxman

and accused proved the motive and evidence of prosecution witnesses also

corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, there is no impediment to

{31} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

convict the accused for the charges pitted against them. He has also relied

upon the case of Sham @ Raju Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) as well as

the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mallinath

Gurusiddhappa Birajdar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others, (supra) and submits that the injuries received to PW-3 itself

establish his presence on the scene of occurrence. Therefore, his evidence

cannot be discarded for some discrepancies and contradictions in his

evidence. He also relied on the exposition of law by the Apex Court in the

matter of Mallikarjun Ragati Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (supra).

33] We have carefully examined the legal guidelines delineated in

the aforesaid judicial pronouncements but it appears that the facts and

circumstances of these judicial pronouncements are not akin to the

attending circumstances in the matter in hand. All these cases are

distinguishable on the facts as in all these cases some peculiar facts were

found which probabilies the case of the prosecution. These judicial

pronouncements appear not profitable to the prosecution and seems

misplaced in this case. It would not advance the arguments put forth on

behalf of first informant PW-3 Laxman.

34] At the cost of repetition, we would like to mention that since

beginning, the conduct and demeanour of the PW-3 Laxman and his wife

Vimalbai appears incredulous and dubious in nature. They did not lodge FIR

about the incident promptly at the earliest and maintained the silence for

colossal period of 10 to 12 hours till lodging the FIR at belated stage at about

{32} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

9.00 p.m. The behaviour of these star witnesses of the prosecution, after the

alleged incident also appears unnatural and against normal human behaviour.

Therefore, the mere factum of sustaining injuries to the PW-3 Laxman do not

make his evidence qualify being cogent and credible for appreciation in this

case. It would be unsafe to fasten the guilt on the accused on the version

of injured witness PW-3 Laxman and his wife Vimalbai. The Division Bench of

this Court at its Principal Seat at Bombay had an occasion to deal with

evidence of injured witness in the case of Narayan Kanu Datavale and

others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 Cri. L.J. 1788, in which, in para 9

it has been observed as under :-

"The short question in this appeal is as to whether the testimony of the three eye-witnesses namely Tukaram, Janardhan and Laxmi who are the brother, son and the mother of the deceased respectively, inspires confidence or not ? Our answer to the same is in the negative. While giving the said answer, we are conscious of the fact that Tukaram and Laxmi are injured witnesses according to the prosecution and normally, this Court is loath to reject the testimony of a injured witness. However, there is no immutable rule of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of injured witnesses should be mechanically accepted as gospel truth for injuries may only at the best ensure presence of a witness but, are no guarantee of his credibility and truthfullness. It is an elementary norm of appreciation of evidence that before the testimony of even an injured witness can be accepted, it has to pass the test of truthfulness and should be in consonance with probabilities. We are reinformed in our view, by the decision of the Allahabad High Court, reported in 1984 All LJ 1316, (Vijay Shankar Misra V. State) wherein paragraph 22 their Lordships have observed thus :-

"It is no doubt correct that if a witness is injured, then his presence on the spot at the time and place of occurrence is prima facie established but

{33} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

for basing conviction solely on the evidence of an injured witness, is necessary that the injured witness must be held to be a wholly reliable witness. Wherein in a case there is the sole evidence of the injured witness against the accused and if it is shown that there is material infirmity and falsity in some part of his evidence, then it will not be at all safe to convict the accused solely on the evidence of the injured witness relying upon the eye-witnesses's account given by him without independent corroboration by material evidence."

35] In the instant case, the evidence of injured Laxman do not inspire

confidence and found not credible. In such circumstances we are of the

view that the quality of evidence of witnesses on record is not upto the mark

and sufficient to satisfy judicial conscience to record verdict of guilt of

accused on such evidence slender in nature. We are not inclined to accept

the allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution against the accused. The

death of victim Shilavati was homicidal in nature, but, the prosecution

miserably failed to prove the nexus and proximity of the appellant-accused

with the alleged cause of death of victim Shilavati. The quality of evidence

adduced on record do not permit us to draw an inference against the

accused for the charges pitted against them. Therefore, having given due

consideration to the evidence of prosecution witnesses on record, we do not

find any impediment to absolve the accused for the charges levelled against

them. We are of the opinion that the findings expressed by the Trial Court

against the appellant Ishwar appears erroneous, illegal and not within the purview

of law. However, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court in regard to

{34} Crapl 239.13 F.odt

acquittal of the rest of the accused for the charges against them appears

just, proper and reasonable and it would not warrant any interference.

36] In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.239 of 2013 of appellant

Ishwar is hereby allowed and his conviction recorded by the learned Trial

Court in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2009 is quashed and set-aside. The

appellant Ishwar is acquitted of the offence under section 302, 323 of the

Indian Penal Code. It is informed that appellant Ishwar is in jail being a

convict in the crime. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any

other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid be refunded to appellant- Ishwar.

However, the other appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 2013 and

Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2014 stand dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

Registrar (Judicial) to transmit copy of this judgment and order to the

concerned Jail Authority and to the appellant Ishwar, immediately, for

further process. The appellant- Ishwar shall furnish the bail bonds of Rs.

15,000/- and surety of like amount under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the

concerned trial court at Udgir.

        [K.K.SONAWANE]                                  [S.S. SHINDE]
            JUDGE                                          JUDGE
grt/-