Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Balasaheb Savleram Dangat & Ors on 18 May, 2017

Bench: A.S. Oka

 Shridhar Sutar                               1                 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1019 OF 2002

 The State of Maharashtra                                  ... Appellant 
           Versus
 1.        Balasaheb Savleram Dangat
 2.        Baba @ Santosh Ratansingh Pardeshi
 3.        Shaikh Munwar Ahmed
 4.        Sunil Ramchandra Meher
 5.        Zarar Ahmed Hazigulam Dastagir
 6.        Vilas Shankar Auti
 7.        Tanaji Vishnu Thosar
 8.        Sambhaji Vithal Tambe
 9.        Avinash Tukaram Rahane                          ... Respondents 
                                .....
 Mr. Artan Sait, APP for the Appellant-State.
 None present for the respondents.
                                .....

                                     CORAM : A. S. OKA, J.

                                     DATE     : 18th MAY, 2017.
 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State.

2. By the impugned order dated 14 th May, 2002, the

learned IIIrd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune acquitted

the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 148, 149 as well as Sections 332, 333, 353, 452,

427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3

of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

1 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 2 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

3. The incidents such as the alleged incident are not

uncommon in the State. In the city of Junnar, on 4 th May, 2000

there was failure of electricity supply. Electricity was being

supplied to the town of Junnar by the Maharashtra State

Electricity Board (MSEB). The allegation is that political

leaders/workers such as, a member of the Legislative Assembly

and municipal councilor and others, entered MSEB Sub-Station

control room and indulged in the acts of rioting thereby

damaging the public property in the control room. They assaulted

the three officers of MSEB.

4. The question is whether the respondents-accused

(total nine) are the culprits.

5. The first informant in this case is one Dattatray

Appasaheb Shelar who has been examined by the prosecution as

PW-4. Briefly stated, the case made out in the F.I.R is that, PW4

along with Shankar Doke - lineman, Khandu Sakharam Mandlik -

lineman and Eknath Arjun Pawar - line helper (PW5) were on

duty in the Sub-Station control room of MSEB on 4 th May, 2000.

On that day, at about 10.00 p.m., the first respondent (first

2 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 3 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

accused) who was a local member of the Legislative Assembly,

second to eights respondents and other workers of Shivsena

political party entered into the sub-station. They assumed that the

staff of MSEB has deliberately discontinued the electricity

knowing fully that there was a function of Shiv-Jayanti. They

destroyed the public property in the control room, such as chairs,

tables, telephone, T.V. etc. They assaulted PW4 and PW5 by

kicking and by using broken pieces of chairs thereby causing

serious injuries to them. Another allegation is that PW2 - Sitaram

Ramacharya Acharya who was residing near the sub-station was

called by the mob to the control room and was given blows by

kicks and hands.

6. The prosecution examined total nine witnesses

including PW2 Sitaram Ramacharya Acharya, PW4 Dattatray

Appasaheb Shelar and PW5 Eknath Arjun Pawar and PW3 Dr.

Smita Madhusudan Lahoti. Witnesses are victims of the offence as

they were injured. PW5 - Eknath Pawar did not support the

prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Other witnesses

were examined, such as, engineers and police officers. The

learned APP has taken me through the notes of evidence and the

3 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 4 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

findings recorded in the impugned judgment. His submission is

that the impugned judgment is perverse, inasmuch as the findings

recorded therein are completely contrary to the evidence on

record. His submission is that the accused viz; a member of the

Legislative Assembly and a Municipal Councilor were known to

the witnesses and therefore, there was no issue of identification of

the accused by eye witnesses. He submitted that the medical

evidence fully supports the case of the prosecution and injuries

found on the persons of the three witnesses completely support

the case of the prosecution. He submitted that there was a high

handed act on the part of members of the mob including the

present accused. One of them was a member of the Legislative

Assembly and one of them was a Municipal Councilor. He

submitted that there cannot be a better case of obstructing the

functioning of public officers. He submitted that this is a case

where in the light of evidence of PW2 and PW4, an order of

conviction ought to have been passed by the learned Sessions

Judge.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have

gone through the notes of evidence. It can be said that there was

4 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 5 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

an incident as alleged by the prosecution. As stated earlier, the

real question is whether the respondents are the persons who

committed the alleged offences.

8. PW2 Sitaram Ramcharya Acharya stated that he was

Assistant Engineer in the Sub-Station of MSEB at Junnar. He was

staying in a quarter provided by MSEB along with his family. He

stated that in the night at about 10.00 p.m on 4 th May, 2000 while

he was in the house, he heard the sound of the mob from outside

of his house. He stated that in the mob one Tambe, Auti and

Munna Shaikh and others were there. Though he stated that those

persons were present in the Court, he did not specifically identify

those persons who were present in the Court. In paragraph 2 of

his deposition, there is an allegation against the first respondent.

In paragraph 2 he stated that;

"2) There accused Sambhaji Tambe told me that Amdarsaheb had called me. Therefore, I went upto the gate of MSEB there Amdar-accused Balasaheb Dangat was present. There said Balasaheb Dhangat stated me Haramkhor, supply band padlela ahe, tubhi kalaji ghetali nahi and muddam supply band padale ahe" and he further stated to the persons who were with him that to see me. Therefore, the accused No.3 Munwar Shaikh, accused No.1 Sambhaji Tambe, accused No.7 Tanaji Thosar, accused No.6 Vilas Shankar, Auti, accused No.2 Baban Pardeshi and accused No.4 Sunwar Mehere and

5 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 6 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

others pushed and pulled me and they beat felt me on the ground. I received injuries on my left thigh. Thereafter, they all stated that took me to the police station. Thereafter they took me to the Junnar police stn. ...."

9. What is material is the cross examination. In

paragraph 4, he admitted that he was unable to identify the

persons of the mob who were standing in front of his house. He

accepted that due to the darkness and as there was hue and cry in

the mob, he was unable to understand that what was going on in

the mob. He was confronted with the question as to whether he

had seen who pushed and pulled him. When the suggestion was

given that the witness was unable to see who had pushed and

pulled him, the witness volunteered that he has seen the persons

who assaulted him in the headlight of a jeep. This is not the case

made out by the prosecution. Apart from the fact that PW2 did not

specifically identify the individual accused who were sitting in the

Court, he accepted that there was a darkness and therefore,

claimed that he had seen the persons who assaulted him in the

headlight of a jeep. Thus, in substance, he accepted that there was

darkness inside the MSEB sub-station and even outside the MSEB

sub-station control room. The case which is made out is an

6 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 7 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

afterthought that he had seen the persons who were assaulting

him in the headlight of a jeep. He has not stated so in the

examination-in-chief. He has not disclosed that there was a total

darkness and he had seen the persons who assaulted him in the

headlight of a jeep. It is true that on the insistence of the accused

that this witness was subjected for medical test for ascertaining

whether he had consumed liquor. Taking the evidence of PW2 as it

is, in my view, it is difficult to accept his version that he could

identify the persons in the mob.

10. As far as PW4 Dattatrya Appasaheb Shelar is

concerned, the incident was narrated by him. It may noted that

this witness did not specifically identify the alleged accused sitting

in the Court. In paragraph 3 of the cross examination, the witness

stated thus;

"3) Police had recorded my statements two times. I did not stated to the police in my complaint that I took the charge of my work and made the enquiry regarding the supply. I have not stated in my complaint that the accused while entering the premises immediately started destroying the table and chairs of the office. I also not stated before the police that the accused had assaulted me and Eknath with the pieces of table and chairs. It is also not stated in complaint that my spects were also damaged in that incident. I

7 of 9

Shridhar Sutar 8 250-APEAL-1019.02.doc

also not stated in the complaint that I received injury on my thing by the nail and my trouser were blood stains. I also not stated in my complaint that our engineer Acharya came in the spot and he took me other to the police station....."

11. In paragraph 2, the witness accepted that he was not

knowing and therefore unable to identify the other 20 to 25

persons who were at the place of occurrence with the accused

persons. Therefore, there is no identification of the accused by this

witness as well.

12. PW5 Eknath Arjun Pawar was declared as hostile.

13. After considering the evidence of the three witnesses, a

serious doubt is created as to whether the respondents-accused

were involved in the crime.

14. There is one more aspect of the matter. PW8 Rajendra

Balajirao Dahale - Additional Deputy Commissioner, State

Intelligence Department recorded statements of Jayaram Raut,