Bombay High Court
Mangesh S/O. Arun Bagulkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 13 September, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 appln18.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 18/2017
Mangesh s/o Arun Bagulkar,
aged 24 years, Occ. Cultivator,
r/o Pardi, Tq. Karanja, Dist. Wardha. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. State of Maharashtra through
P.S.O. PS Talegaon, Dist. Wardha.
2. Motiram s/o Keshaoraoji Tiple,
aged about 60 years, Occ. Cultivator.
3. Avinash s/o Rambhauji Tiple,
aged about 27 years, Occ. Cultivator.
Both r/o Pardi-Heti, Tq. Karanja,
Dist. Wardha.
4. Dyaneshwar Motiram Tiple,
aged about 21 years.
5. Rajendra Yadavrao Tiple,
aged about 36 years.
6. Pramod Anandrao Tiple,
Aged 40 years.
7. Rajendra Panjabrao Tiple,
aged 44 years.
8. Nilesh Bhaurao Tiple,
aged 27 years.
9. Pravin Tukaram Tiple,
aged 27 years.
10. Tukaram Bhaduji Tiple,
aged 27 years.
::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/09/2017 01:20:51 :::
2 appln18.17.odt
11. Vijendra @ Gopal Motiram Tiple,
aged 28 years.
12. Rambhau Anandrao Tiple,
aged 55 years.
13. Nandu Dhondba Tiple,
Aged 50 years.
14. Rajesh Dayaram Tiple,
aged 41 years.
15. Sudhakar Tukaramji Tiple,
aged 48 years.
16. Mangesh Laxman Kaware,
aged 30 years.
17. Prabhakar Ramaji Tiple,
aged 46 years.
Non applicant nos.4 to 17
all r/o Pardi (Heti), Tq. Karanja,
Dist. Wardha. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. K. Bhoyar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1.
Mr. P. Dharaskar, Advocate for non applicant nos.2 to 17.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3 appln18.17.odt
2. An application was moved by the present applicant in
the court of learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. The said application
was registered as Other Miscellaneous Case No.38/2016. The said
application was for issuing directions to transfer Regular Criminal
Case No.55/2016, State of Maharashtra Vs. Motiramji Tiple and
Ors., pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arvi to
the Court of 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha and
seeking an order that it be tried along with Sessions Trial
No.56/2015, State of Maharashtra Vs. Arun Bagulkar and Ors..
3. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties to
the application and after considering the facts of both the cases,
noticed that the incidents giving rise to two different crimes are
distinct. So also, the learned Sessions Judge noticed that both the
incidents have occurred at two different places. Therefore, the
application was rejected.
4. According to the learned counsel, both the incidents are
one and the same.
4 appln18.17.odt
5. The present applicant is accused in Sessions Trial
No.56/2015 which has arisen on the basis of Crime No. 39/2014.
The said crime is registered in view of the statement of Vijayendra
@ Gopal Motiram Tiple. Crime No.39/2014 is registered at Police
Station, Talegaon for an offence punishable under Sections 307,
342, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Complainant in Crime No.39/2014 is accused in Crime
No.40/2014 registered with the same police station for an offence
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323,427, 447, 323, 504,
506 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the report lodged by
the present applicant.
7. Crime No.39/2014 has culminated into Sessions Trial
No.56/2015 which is pending on the file of 1 st Ad hoc Additional
Sessions Judge, Wardha whereas Crime No.40/2014 in which
charge-sheet is filed has culminated into Regular Criminal Case
No.55/2016 and is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Arvi.
5 appln18.17.odt
8. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have
gone through the FIR so also the spot panchanama recorded in
both the crimes by the investigating officer. The incident giving
rise to Sessions Trial No.56/2015 as per the FIR itself occurred
inside the house of the present applicant and co-accused Arun
Bagulkar. The said has occurred on 26.04.2014 on 18:40 hrs.
9. As per the FIR, which gives rise to Regular Criminal
Case No.55/2016 had occurred in front of the house of the present
applicant. The boundaries of the incident as recorded in the two
spot panchanamas are also substantially different. Further, as per
the printed FIR, the incident in Crime No.39/2014 giving rise to
the Sessions Trial no.56/2015 has occurred at 18:40 hrs. whereas
even from the FIR lodged by the present applicant Mangesh, the
occurrence giving rise to the Regular Criminal Case No.55/2016
has occurred at 7.00 O'clock as it could be seen from the
following.
"आज ददनननक २६.४.१४ ररजज सनयनकनळज ०७.०० वन. चच ससमनरनस मनझच
वडजल हच घरनसरमर बसलच हरतच."
This particular portion is reproduced only to show the
time of the incident even as per the applicant, the incident had
6 appln18.17.odt
occurred at 7 O'clock and in front of his house. The FIR further
proceeds that his father was sitting in front of his house and he
was attacked by the accused persons. Whereas the statement of
Vijendra, which is registered as FIR No.39/2014 insofar as the spot
and time is concerned reads as under:
"४. घटनन करठच घडलज- घटनन हचतज गनवनतजल अरण बनगसलकर व मनगचश
बनगसलकर यनचच शचतनतजल घरज घडलज.
५. घटनन दकतज वनजतन घडलज- घटनन दद. २६.४.१४ चच सनयनकनळज
०६.३० वन. घडलज"
From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that these two
incidents are different and even those are not the outcome of the
same incident. At the most, the incident giving rise to the Sessions
Trial No.56/2015, after appreciation of the entire prosecution
case, can be termed as motive for the second incident that had
occurred at 7 O'clock.
10. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant
on the reported case in Sudhir & Ors. Vs. State of M.P., reported in
(2001) 2 SCC 688, in my view is misplaced in view of the facts of
this particular case. Further, it is also the contention of the
learned A.P.P. that these two incidents are different and have
occurred at two different places.
7 appln18.17.odt
11. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to
the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The application is
therefore rejected.
Rule is discharged.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.)
kahale
