Pandurang Limbaji Sapkal & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 8018 Bom

                                                       Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001
                                           1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2001
                                  WITH
                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2017

1.     Pandurang s/o. Limbaji Sapkal,
       Age 68 years, Occu. Agri.,

2.     Sangram s/o. Pandurang Sapkal,
       Age 36 years, Occu. Service,

3.     Sushilabai Pandurang Sapkal,
       Age 65 years, Occu. Agri. & Household,

       All R/o. Deolali, Taluka and
       District Osmanabad
       At present in JAIL                         ....Appellants.
                                                  (Ori. Accused 1 to 3)

               Versus


       The State of Maharashtra                   ....Respondent.
                                                  (Ori. Complainant)


Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for
appellants.
Mr. S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent/State.
                                CORAM     :    T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                               S.M. GAVAHANE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 18/09/2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 11/10/2017 JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

1) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of

Sessions Case No. 168/2000, which was pending in the Court of 2nd

Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The Trial Court has

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under section

302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and under section

342 r/w. 34 of IPC. Both the sides are heard.

2) The facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be

stated as follows :-

Deceased Shashikala was daughter of Harishchandra

Thavale, who is resident of village Surdi, Tahsil Osmanabad. She was

given in marriage about 12 years prior to the date of incident to

Dixit Pandurang Sapkal. Dixit is son of appellant Nos. 1 and 3 and

brother of appellant No. 2. Appellants are residents of villlage Deolali

and they were living in Joint Hindu Family with the appellants. After

3-4 years of the marriage, there was some dispute and so, the

deceased had lived for some time in the house of her parents. Then

there was settlement and deceased had returned to matrimonial

house. After 4-5 years of the marriage, Dixit had started living

separate from his parents and brothers, though he was living in the

same building. One room was allotted to Dixit. Dixit and his wife

used to earn livelihood by doing labour work. The deceased has left

behind three issues.

3) There was dispute between Dixit and the appellants as

appellants were not giving agricultural land of the share of Dixit in

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

his possession and they were not effecting partition. Due to that, the

deceased and Dixit used to pick up quarrels with the parents.

4) The incident in question took place on 8.4.2000 in the

matrimonial house of deceased. At about 7.00 p.m. the deceased

returned to the house from the place of work. She cooked food and

she started taking dinner. On that day, there was quarrel between

appellant No. 3 Sushila, mother of Dixit and Dixit. Due to the

quarrel, appellant No. 3 had become angry. Dixit went outside of the

house to answer the nature's call. The appellant No. 3 then started

giving abuses to the deceased and the deceased questioned her and

said that she should not give abuses. After that accused Nos. 1 and

2 entered the room where deceased was living with Dixit. They

closed the door by putting latch from inside and then appellant No. 3

poured kerosene on deceased and appellant No. 1 set fire to her.

During incident, appellant No. 2 was holding deceased.

5) When clothes of the deceased caught fired, she started

shouting. After hearing shouting of the deceased, Dixit rushed back.

He used blanket to extinguish the fire, but the deceased sustained

injuries all over the body. Dixit shifted the deceased to Civil Hospital,

Osmanabad in a private jeep. The Civil Hospital by sending reference

letter informed to the police station that such patient was admitted.

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

One police constable of Osmanabad Police Station visited the

hospital and recorded the statement of Shashikala, deceased. In the

first disclosure made to police, she blamed the parents and brother

of Dixit for the incident by saying that they had set her on fire.

6) Police requested Executive Magistrate to record the dying

declaration and so, the Executive Magistrate also recorded the dying

declaration. In that dying declaration also, the deceased blamed

appellants for burn injuries sustained by her.

7) Uncle of the deceased namely Machindra is a resident of

Osmanabad. After learning about the incident, he went to Civil

Hospital with his wife Chaya. Information was given about the

incident to parents of Shashikala and they also went to Civil Hospital

on the same night. To these persons also, Shashikala disclosed the

incident and she blamed parents and brother of the husband for the

burn injuries sustained by her.

8) On the basis of first disclosure made by Shashikala to

police, the crime came to be registered for offences punishable

under sections 307, 504, 34 etc. of IPC at C.R. No 39/2000 in

Osmanabad Rural Police Station. During the course of investigation,

police recorded statements of some relatives of deceased on

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

parent's side including the aforesaid persons. On 9.4.2000

panchanama of the spot where incident had taken place was

prepared in presence of panch witnesses. Accused Nos. 1 and 3, the

in-laws were present in Civil Hospital and they came to be arrested.

Appellant No. 2 also came to be arrested. Shashikala died on

10.4.2000. Post mortem ('P.M.' for short) was conducted on the

dead body and on the basis of statement of father of deceased,

crime for offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC and

other offences came to be registered. The clothes of deceased were

taken over. The articles like earth sample mixed with kerosene and

pieces of partly burn clothes of the deceased, which were lying on

the spot of incident and which were lying in front of the room were

taken over during the preparation of spot panchanama and they

were sent to C.A. Office. Kerosene was detected in these articles.

One can containing some kerosene was also found in the room and it

was also taken over.

9) In the Trial Court, charge was framed against appellants

for the aforesaid offences. All the accused pleaded not guilty. The

prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses for proving the

offences. The accused persons took the defence of total denial. No

defence evidence was given. It was contended in the statement

given under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

short) that they had no knowledge as to what had happened on that

day between the deceased and her husband and their attention was

drawn first time when she ran out of the room and her clothes had

caught fired. They contended that they had shifted the deceased to

Civil Hospital.

10) The Trial Court believed the two recorded dying

declarations and also the oral dying declarations which were made to

father of the deceased and to Chaya. The points raised by the

learned Senior Counsel are being discussed at proper places

hereinafter.

11) The defence has disputed everything including the case

of prosecution that Shashikala died homicidal death. When the death

takes place due to burn injuries, there are always three possibilities

like sustaining burn injuries in accidental fire, sustaining injuries

when deceased wanted to commit suicide and sustaining injuries

when she was set on fire to finish her. Due to these circumstances,

in a case like present one, only on the basis of medical evidence,

finding cannot be given as to whether it was homicide. The medical

evidence can be considered only to ascertain the condition of the

patient if there is material like dying declarations of the deceased.

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

12) The inquest panchanama at Exh. 17 is admitted by the

defence. This document shows that there were burn injuries on both

hands, palms, fingers etc. There were burn injuries over face, neck,

chest, abdomen, private parts, back, thighs etc. Except the soles of

foot, almost on every part, there were burn injuries. The deceased

was wearing nylon sari and it can be said that due to this

circumstance the intensity of burns must have increased.

13) Dr. Jawale (PW 2) is examined to prove the P.M. report

which is at Exh. 28. Surprisingly, the doctor has not mentioned in

P.M. report the percentage of burn injuries noticed by him on every

part or limb of the body, which is requirement of law. Due to that,

the original record was called like bed head ticket and then on that

basis, the evidence is given by doctor. Substantive evidence and this

record (Exh. 29/1 to 29/4) show that the extent of burns over upper

extremities, left and right was 9%. Initially in case papers, the

extent of burn was mentioned as 68%, but subsequently, it was

mentioned as 96%. This record and the evidence shows that both

the hands, palms of the deceased had burn injuries. This

circumstance needs to be kept in mind as thumb impressions are

shown to be obtained on the two recorded dying declarations. The

Trial Court has held that as the thumb impressions were obtained

immediately within few hours of the incident, it was possible to

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

obtain thumb impressions.

14) The bed head ticket mentioned above shows that the

deceased was admitted in Civil Hospital at 10.05 p.m. of 8.4.2000

and the death took place on 10.4.2000. In the bed head ticket, it is

mentioned that there were burn injuries, but how the burn injuries

were sustained was not informed to the hospital. The time of

incident was informed as 7.30 p.m. of 8.4.2000. In the bed head

ticket, there is no specific mention that for the purpose of giving

opinion regarding fitness of patient at the time of recording of dying

declaration, the patient was examined. However, there is entry to

show that at about 11.00 p.m. on 8.4.2000, the patient was

examined. The second examination was made at 9.00 a.m. of

9.4.2000.

15) The aforesaid circumstances and the record show that

nothing was informed to the Civil Hospital as to how the deceased

had sustained injuries. If the deceased was conscious, in ordinary

course, doctor would have made inquiry with the deceased at 10.05

p.m. and on that basis, history would have been recorded in the bed

head ticket. This did not happen. This circumstance needs to be kept

in mind as such information could have been treated as first

disclosure of the deceased and it could have been used as statement

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

under section 32 of Evidence Act.

16) After admission of deceased in the hospital at about

10.05 p.m. reference letter must have given to police by the hospital

and after that police must have visited the hospital. This

circumstance needs to be kept in mind as the first dying declaration

is shown to be recorded at 11.30 p.m. of 8.4.2000. The time of

starting of recording and the time of finishing recording is not

mentioned on the first dying declaration, Exh. 31.

17) Police Head Constable Patil (PW 3) has given evidence on

the first dying declaration, Exh. 31. He has deposed that first he

made inquiry with Dr. Diwan (PW 8) from Civil Hospital and Dr.

Diwan came with him to the burn ward and Dr. Diwan gave opinion

that deceased was conscious and able to give statement. He has

deposed that he made inquiry with the deceased about name etc.

and then he asked about the incident and the incident narrated by

her was recorded by him in Exh. 31. He has given evidence that the

contents of the dying declaration were read over to the deceased

and when she admitted it, he obtained her thumb impression on the

statement. He has deposed that he obtained endorsement of Dr.

Diwan about the physical condition of patient on Exh. 31. Dr. Diwan

(PW 8) is examined to prove the endorsement. He has deposed that

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

in his presence, the statement was recorded by Police Head

Constable Patil and aforesaid procedure was followed by Patil. He

has given evidence that he had given opinion that the patient was

conscious and able to give statement.

18) Dr. Diwan (PW 8) had admitted patient in the hospital

and so, he was cross examined on bed head ticket. He has not given

reason as to why history was not asked to the patient. He admits

that both the upper limbs had sustained burn injuries and when he

was questioned as to how thumb impression could have been

obtained due to burn condition of upper limbs, he deposed that

time of 12 hours is required for formation of bullae and till that time,

thumb impression can be obtained. This opinion cannot be accepted

as due to burn injuries, one cannot get proper finger print

expression. The Trial Court has, however, accepted the opinion given

by Dr. Diwan.

19) In the evidence of Dr. Diwan (PW 8), it is brought on the

record on the basis of bed head ticket that on admission he had

immediately given injectable sedatives. The names of sedatives are

mentioned by him in substantive evidence and also in bed head

ticket and he has admitted that the deceased might have been under

sedatives at the time of giving of the statement. This possibility

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

cannot be ruled out due to aforesaid record and substantive

evidence. He has not given reason as to why the time of starting of

recording was not mentioned and the time 11.30 p.m. is only

mentioned on Exh. 31. This circumstance about first dying

declaration, Exh. 31, needs to be kept in mind while ascertaining as

to whether all the so called disclosures were made on time given by

witnesses and whether they are consistent with each other or not.

20) The prosecution has examined Pathan (PW 7), the

Executive Magistrate, who recorded the second dying declaration.

His evidence is similar to the evidence of Police Head Constable Patil

(PW 3) and he had also obtained opinion of Dr. Diwan. There is

endorsement about the fitness of patient, which is proved in the

evidence of Dr. Diwan (PW 8). The second dying declaration was

recorded between 11.45 p.m. and 12.00 night. The circumstances

which are mentioned already with regard to history and condition of

patient need to be considered at the time of appreciation of the

dying declaration which is at Exh. 41 also.

21) Harishchandra (PW 1), father of the deceased is resident

of other village and so, it needs to be ascertained as to whether any

relative from parent's side was present near the deceased when the

dying declarations were recorded. In the cross examination,

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

Harishchandra (PW 1) has admitted that his real brother Machindra

is resident of Osmanabad. He has admitted that when he reached

Civil Hospital on that night, Machindra and his wife were present

near the deceased. Evidence on record, particularly of Chaya (PW 4)

shows that one requires hardly 10 minutes to cross the distance

between the house of Machindra and the Civil Hospital.

22) In the evidence of Harishchandra (PW 1), one more

circumstance can be found. His evidence shows that one

Chandrakant Thavale of village Surdi, the village of the first

informant gave information to him about the incident and in his

vehicle, he went to the hospital. It is suggested to him that this man

was sent by accused persons to give the news, but he has avoided

to admit that. He has tried to say that Machindra had sent him.

Machindra is not examined and Chaya (PW 4) has not given such

evidence. This circumstance creates a probability that accused had

given news about the incident to the parents of deceased

immediately. Evidence of Chaya (PW 4) also shows that a message

was given to them by Venkat Sapkal, nephew of accused No. 1 at

about 10.30 p.m. on 8.4.2000. This conduct of the accused persons

was not consistent with the guilt.

23) The evidence of father Harishchandra (PW 1) and the

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

spot panchanama show that in the vicinity of the house of accused,

there were houses of many persons including Laxman Gaikwad and

the house of Laxman Gaikwad is at the distance of 10 ft. from the

spot of incident. In spite of this circumstance, no neighbour of the

accused is examined by prosecution. No explanation is given for non

examination of the neighbours. If the husband of the deceased could

rush back from the place where he had gone to answer nature's call

after hearing the shouting of the deceased, the neighbours would

have also rushed to the spot. Further, nothing is said about children

of the deceased. Considering the circumstance that the marriage

had taken place more than 10 years back, it can be said that one or

two issues must have crossed the age of 8 or 9 years and that issue

could have given some information regarding incident. In the dying

declaration itself, it is mentioned that the children were present in

the house and in ordinary course also, the children must have been

there. The non examination of the children of the deceased as

witnesses has created serious doubt about the case of prosecution.

24) The evidence of Harishchandra (PW 1), father of

deceased and Chaya (PW 4) shows that there was dispute between

the deceased and her husband on one side and the accused persons

on the other. Evidence is given that Dixit was demanding partition

from the accused and they were not giving separate possession of

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

the land to Dixit. Even when there is such case of the State, no

record is produced to show that the accused persons have ancestral

property in which Dixit had some share. The evidence of

Harishchandra (PW 1) shows that one property was purchased by

accused No. 1, father of Dixit and one property is probably standing

in the name of another brother of Dixit. Even if it is believed that

Dixit was asking for partition and due to that the relations were

strained, Dixit would have been good witness for prosecution on the

incident. Dixit is not examined by the prosecution. Further, the

motive can be used by both the State and also by the accused. If the

accused were not ready to give separate possession of any property

to the family of deceased, there was ground for her to implicate the

accused due to vindictiveness. This probability needs to be kept in

mind while giving weight to the dying declarations.

25) The contents of the first dying declaration show that the

deceased had disclosed that there was quarrel between her husband

and mother in law at about 7.00 p.m. on that day. It shows that

children were at home. The deceased disclosed that due to this

quarrel with the husband, accused No. 3 had become angry and she

started giving abuses to the deceased. It was disclosed in this dying

declaration that the deceased questioned accused No. 3, mother in

law about the abuses and she said that accused No. 3 should not

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

give abuses. The disclosure shows that after that accused Nos. 1 and

2 entered her room, they closed the doors from inside by putting on

latch. She disclosed that accused No. 2, brother in law held her in

the incident, accused No. 3 poured kerosene on her person after

fetching it and after that accused No. 3 set her on fire by using

matchstick. She disclosed that she shouted loudly and after that

husband came running towards her. She disclosed that by using

blanket, the husband extinguished the fire. She disclosed that the

incident took place at about 9.00 p.m. and it is her husband who had

shifted her to Osmanabad Civil Hospital in a private jeep for

treatment. The first disclosure does not show that as to when

husband had left the room to answer the nature's call, though there

is mention that after hearing shouting the husband came running

towards her. In ordinary course, she must have given statement to

her husband first about the incident and husband would have

informed about that in the hospital to doctor if the deceased was not

able to inform about it. It is already mentioned that in case papers

no history of burn injuries is given. Thus, in first dying declaration, it

was disclosed that accused No. 1 set fired to the deceased and other

two accused had played active role in the way mentioned in the

declaration.

26) In the second dying declaration, the deceased disclosed

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

that after 6.00 pm. the quarrel had starrted between accused No. 3

and her husband and when accused No. 3 started giving abuses, she

said that accused No. 3 should not give abuses to husband. She

disclosed that accused No. 3 then became angry and she started

giving abuses to the deceased. Thus, in the second dying declaration

indirectly, it was disclosed that it was continuous incident and there

was no gap between giving abuses to the husband of the deceased

first by accused No. 3 and then by giving abuses to deceased by

accused No. 3. In the second dying declaration, it was disclosed that

husband then left the room to answer the nature's call and then

accused Nos. 1 and 2 took her inside of her room and accused No. 3

also entered her room. This story is little bit different as in the first

dying declaration she had disclosed that she was already present in

her room and there all the three accused entered. In the second

dying declaration also, she disclosed that accused then closed the

doors of the room from inside by putting on the latch and then

accused No. 3 poured kerosene which was present in the house (in

the room) and then accused No. 3 herself set the deceased on fire

by using the matchstick. Thus, in the second dying declaration she

disclosed that it was accused No. 3 who set her on fire and not

accused No. 1. She disclosed that her husband rushed towards her

when she started shouting and husband extinguished the fire.

However, in this declaration, she disclosed that her husband and also

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

accused Nos. 1 and 3, the parents of the husband, had shifted her to

Government Hospital, Osmanabad. This disclosure also shows that

incident took place inside of the room where deceased was living

with her family.

27) If the two recorded dying declarations are compared with

each other, it can be said that there is inconsistency so far as the

allegations made as against accused Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned.

There are also aforesaid other inconsistencies which cannot be

ignored. No injury was found other than burn injury and it is also not

her case that she had sustained injuries due to use of criminal force.

If the accused wanted to set her on fire, she would have definitely

resisted and would have started shouting immediately after guessing

about the intention of the accused. That did not happen. Thus, the

story given in the second dying declarations does not appear to be

probable in nature.

28) The evidence of Harishchandra (PW 1) father of

deceased and the spot panchanama show that the parents of Dixit

were living in separate room and accused No. 2 was also living in

separate room. Specific admission is given that they had separated

in mess. On the eastern side of these rooms, there is the public

road. The incident took place at about 9.00 p.m. The neighbours

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

could have said about atleast the presence of the accused in the

house at the relevant time, but neighbours are not examined. The

observations are already made in respect of non examination of Dixit

and issues of Dixit. It is admitted that accused No. 2 was in service

in Osmanabad. Due to these circumstances, it was more necessary

to examine somebody to prove that on that night accused No. 2 was

present in the house. The aforesaid two dying declarations show that

the role given to accused No. 2 is not that specific and it is vague.

29) If both the dying declarations are to be believed, they

need to be compared with the spot panchanama. In the evidence of

Investigating Officer, it is brought on the record that due to keeping

of cot, the open space which had remained in the room was hardly 5

ft. in the width. This circumstance shows that there was no sufficient

space for three accused persons and the deceased for happening of

the incident in the manner described in the dying declaration. If

kerosene was used and the incident took place in the manner

described, in ordinary course, some accused would have sustained

burn injuries. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 came to be arrested in the

hospital itself as they had shifted the deceased to the hospital. Their

clothes were not taken over to ascertain as to whether they had

used kerosene in the incident. Thus, there is no circumstantial check

to the disclosure made against the appellants.

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

30) The spot panchanama and other circumstances are

sufficient to infer that fire started inside of the room where the

deceased was living. The contents of C.A. report are sufficient to

infer that kerosene was used in the incident. Some pieces of partly

burn Sari of nylon were found in Ota portion, in front of room. The

circumstances show that the fire was probably extinguished inside of

the room and then the deceased was shifted from that room to

outside.

31) All aforesaid circumstances create a probability that it

was a suicide and the deceased had set fire to herself by using

kerosene. Only after examination of the husband, the things would

have become clear. Due to non examination of the husband, the

possibility of suicide is not ruled out.

32) The evidence of Harishchandra (PW 1) father of

deceased and Chayat (PW 4) is on dying declarations and their

versions are as per the first dying declaration. The circumstances

which are discussed in respect of the recorded dying declarations

need to be kept in mind for appreciating the evidence of these two

witnesses also. If the four dying declarations are considered

together, it can be said that there are inconsistencies between the

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

two oral dying declaration and first dying declaration on one side and

the second dying declaration on the other. The inconsistencies are

already discussed. This Court has already made observations with

regard to sedatives used and the admission given by doctor on use

of sedatives. There is possibility that the patient was not alert and

the persons who had already reached like Chaya and her husband

had tutored her.

33) It is true that the dying declarations can be acted upon

without corroboration. When there are multiple dying declarations

and death takes place due to burn injuries, in such cases, it is the

duty of the Court to scrutinize the dying declarations and see as to

whether the surrounding circumstances corroborate or contradict the

disclosures. It is also the duty of the Court to ascertain as to

whether there was the possibility of tutoring or dying declarations

are outcome of the imagination. When the dying declaration itself is

suspicious, the Court needs to look for corroboration. In the present

matter, due to the circumstances like use of sedatives, the use of

thumb impression when both the hands had received burn injuries

and the presence of uncle and aunt of the deceased before recording

of the dying declaration, serious suspicion is created about both the

recorded dying declarations. There are discrepancies with regard to

details of occurrence as already observed.

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

34) The dying declaration is substantive piece of evidence. In

cases like present one, it is up to the Court to decide what weight

can be given to the dying declaration. Though there is no rule that

dying declaration cannot be acted without corroboration, this

proposition depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and

every case. To the aforesaid dying declarations, the corroboration

was necessary, but by withholding the witnesses, the prosecution

has created more suspicion about the correctness and truth of the

dying declarations made by the deceased. Thus, the dying

declarations are not inspiring the full confidence. Even if the

possibility of tutoring is overlooked, the possibility of disclosure due

to vindictiveness has remained there due to aforesaid circumstances.

This Court has no hesitation to hold that benefit of doubt needs to

be given to accused persons due to aforesaid circumstances. This

Court is placing reliance on the observations made by the Apex

Court in the case reported as (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 254

[Uka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan].

35) The learned Senior Counsel for appellants placed reliance

on following reported cases :-

(i) (2008) 5 Supeme Court Cases 468 [Amol Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh],

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

(ii) AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1277 [State of Punjab Vs. Praveen Kumar],

[Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana].

These cases are on the inconsistencies between the stories given in

dying declarations and surrounding facts and circumstances. They

are also on the circumstances like multiple dying declarations. It is

observed that even the manner of sprinkling kerosene and setting

fire if found inconsistent with other circumstances then the Court can

look to the dying declarations with suspicion. The effect of use of

sedatives on dying declaration is also discussed in aforesaid cases

and effect of non examination of the witnesses who were available is

also discussed. The facts and circumstances of each and every case

are always different. The relevant facts of the present matter are

already quoted by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion,

this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Trial Court has

committed serious error in placing reliance on the aforesaid recorded

and oral dying declarations.

36) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and

order of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for

the offences punishable under sections 302 r/w. 34, and 342 r/w. 34

of IPC is hereby set aside. All the appellants stand acquitted of the

Cri. Appeal No. 401/2001

offences for which they were charged and tried. The fine amount, if

any is deposited, is to be returned to the appellants. The bail bonds

of the appellants are to continue for the period of three months from

today to give an opportunity to the State to challenge the decision of

this Court. Criminal Application, if any, is disposed of.

        [S.M. GAVAHANE, J.]             [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]




ssc/