Bombay High Court
Sudam Sopan Ingale And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 28 September, 2017
Bench: A.A. Sayed
1 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 OF 2010
1. Shahaji Sandipan Ingale. ]
Age : 25 years, ]
2. Shivaji Sandipan Ingale. ]
Age : 25 years, ]
Both R/at Sangam, Tal. : Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Appellants /
Orig. Accd.Nos.1 & 2
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
(At the instance of Akluj Police ]
Station) ]
2. Ranjana Ingale, ]
Age - Adult, ]
R/at Ingale Vasti, Sangam, Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Respondents
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2010
Ankush Laxman Ingale. ]
Age : 20 years, ]
R/at Sangam, Tal. : Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Appellant /
Orig. Accd. No.7
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, ]
(At the instance of Akluj Police Station) ] ... Respondent
URS 1 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2017 01:52:39 :::
2 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2010
1. Sudam Sopan Ingale. ]
Age : 35 years, ]
2. Hanumant Sopan Ingale. ]
Age : 55 years, ]
3. Laxman Sopan Ingale. ]
Age : 42 years, ]
4. Shahaji Laxman Ingale. ]
Age : 19 years, ]
All R/at Sangam, Tal. : Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Appellants /
Orig.Accd.Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
(At the instance of Akluj Police Station) ]
2. Ranjana Ingale, ]
Age - Adult, ]
R/at Ingale Vasti, Sangam, Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Respondents
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.37 OF 2010
Satish Vikram Maske. ]
Age : 28 years, Occu : Agriculturist, ]
R/o. Sangam, Tal. Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Appellant /
Orig. Accd. No.8
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, ]
2. Ranjana Ingale, ]
R/at Ingale Vasti, Sangam, Malshiras, ]
Dist. : Solapur. ] ... Respondents
URS 2 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2017 01:52:39 :::
3 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
Mr. D. G. Khamkar for Appellants in Cri. Appeal No.1 of 2010.
Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w Mr. Ateet Shirodkar for Appellants in Cri.
Appeal No.2 of 2010 and Cri. Appeal No.3 of 2010.
Prof. Rohini Dandekar (Appointed Advocate) for Appellant in Cri.
Appeal No.37 of 2010.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for State in All Cri. Appeals.
CORAM :- A. A. SAYED &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON :- 18 SEPTEMBER, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON :- 28 SEPTEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT ( PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-
1. The present Appeals are preferred by the original accused
nos.1 to 8 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30/11/2009
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, in
Sessions Case No.34 of 2008, whereby all these accused were
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149
of the IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in
default of payment of fine, each of the Appellants was directed to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine
amount, 50% was directed to be paid to Ranjana Ingale, the widow of
the deceased. The benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.
was given to all the Appellants.
2. Since all these Appeals arise out of the same Judgment
and Order dated 30/11/2009, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Malshiras, in Sessions Case No.34 of 2008; all these
Appeals are disposed off by this common Judgment.
URS 3 of 19
4 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
3. Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2010 is preferred by the original
accused no.1 - Shahaji Sandipan Ingale and original accused no.2 -
Shivaji Sandipan Ingale. Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2010 is preferred by
the original accused no.7 - Ankush Laxman Ingale. Criminal Appeal
No.3 of 1010 is preferred by the original accused no.3 - Sudam Sopan
Ingale, original accused no.4 - Hanumant Sopan Ingale, original
accused no.5 - Laxman Sopan Ingale and original accused no.6 -
Shahaji Laxman Ingale. Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2010 is preferred
by the original accused no.8 - Satish Vikram Maske. For the sake of
convenience, all these Appellants are hereafter referred to as the
accused as per their serial numbers in the Sessions Case No.34 of
2008.
4. We have heard Mr. D. G. Khamkar, learned Counsel for
Appellants in Cri. Appeal No.1 of 2010, Mr. Ganesh Gole learned for
Appellants in Cri. Appeal No.2 of 2010 and Cri. Appeal No.3 of 2010,
Prof. Rohini Dandekar learned Counsel (Appointed) for Appellant in
Cri. Appeal No.37 of 2010 and Mr. H. J. Dedhia, learned APP for State
and with their assistance, we have gone through the entire evidence
and have perused the record.
5. The prosecution case pertains to the murder of one Arjun
Ingale which was committed on 20/03/2008 at about 9.15 a.m. near
the house of one Somnath Bhoi on the road leading to Ingale Vasti
from village Sangam, District Solapur. It is alleged that the accused
were carrying weapons like swords, scythes and sticks and all of them
URS 4 of 19
5 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
assaulted the deceased. As per the prosecution case, all these accused,
except the accused no.8, are close relatives of each other and also of
the deceased. Accused no.8 was not related to them. It is alleged that
the accused nos.1 and 2 were nephews of the deceased and the
accused nos.3, 4 and 5 were the cousins of the deceased. Accused
nos.6 and 7 were the sons of the accused no.5. Thus, all of them were
closely related. The motive behind the murder was the dispute
related to the boundary of their adjacent agricultural fields.
6. The FIR in the present case was lodged vide C.R.No.53 of
2008 on the statement given by PW 8 Somnath Tukaram Kale, who
was examined as the sole eye witness to the incident. The FIR was
lodged with Akluj Police Station which was about 20 kms from the
spot of the incident. After registration of the FIR, the accused were
arrested on various dates, the recovery of various weapons was
effected at their instance from various spots and their houses. The
statements of witnesses were recorded and after conclusion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC and
thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
7. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. PW
9 Dr. Ramesh Sidramappa Ukarande had conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found 10 incised
wounds as follows :-
(i) Incised wound 6" x 1" x 1.½ on right tempero-parietal
region, fracture of skull,
URS 5 of 19
6 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
(ii) Incised wound 1" x ½" x ½" on right hypochondriac
region,
(iii) Incised wound ½" x ½" x ½" on right hypochondriac
region,
(iv) Incised wound ½" x ½" x ½" on right hypochondriac
parallel to injury no.3.
(v) C.L.W. 2" x 2" x 1" on right elbow, compound fracture
famerous on right lower third.
(vi) Incised wound 1" x ½" x ½" on right ankle joint,
(vii) Incised wound 6" x 1" x ½" on right calf region,
(viii) Incised wound 4" x 1" x ½" on right calf region parallel to
injury no.7,
(ix) Incised wound 4" x 1" x 1" on left calf region,
(x) Incised wound 2" x 1" x 1" on left calf region parallel to
injury no.9.
PW 9 Dr. Ukarande has opined that the injury on the head was
possible by a sword. He has also opined that the 3 injuries on the
hypochondriac region were possible by the sword. The fracture on
right hand was possible by a big stone and the rest of the injuries on
the legs were possible by weapons like scythes. He has opined that
the first injury on the head was sufficient to cause death. The cause of
death was mentioned as 'shock due to severe haemorrhage
(Polytrauma) and head injury'.
8. Most of the other witnesses were panchas for various
panchanamas like recovery of weapons, spot panchanama etc. and the
URS 6 of 19
7 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
remaining witnesses were the police witnesses who were part of the
investigation. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution has placed
on record the CA reports in respect of the analysis of the weapons and
clothes of the accused and on most of these articles, human blood was
found but the blood group was inconclusive.
9. The prosecution case mainly relies on the evidence of the
sole eye witness PW 8 Somnath Kale. Since he was the sole eye
witness and also an interested witness, being the father-in-law of the
deceased, we have scrutinized his evidence very cautiously.
10. According to PW 8 Somnath, his native place is village
Shevre, Taluka Madha. One of his daughters was married to the
deceased Arjun Ingale who was a resident of village Sangam. Arjun's
marriage with this witness's daughter Nirmala was his second
marriage. His first marriage was still subsisting and the name of his
first wife was Ranjana. After his second marriage, even the first wife
of the deceased started residing with him and thereafter all of them
resided together. PW 8 Somnath has further deposed that he himself
had 4 acres of agricultural land at village Shevre and that the
deceased had 10 acres of land at village Sangam out of which 5 acres
land was ancestral and the other land of 5 acres was purchased by
him. PW 8 Somnath has further deposed that he cultivated his own
field but he was also cultivating the field of the deceased on sharing of
profit basis. His village Sherve was at a distance of 3 to 4 kms from
the field of the deceased. He has further deposed that on one side of
URS 7 of 19
8 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
the agricultural land of the deceased, there were lands of accused
nos.3, 4 and 5. He has deposed that the deceased had purchased 5
acres of land from one Gavali. This witness has clearly stated that the
accused had good relations with the deceased but there was some
quarrel between the deceased and the accused nos.1 and 2 in respect
of the boundary ('Bandh') of the land and two years prior to the
incident, accused nos.1 and 2 had filed some criminal case against the
deceased and his family as well as against this witness PW 8 Somnath.
11. PW 8 Somnath has further described about the events
which took place on the date of the incident i.e. 20/03/2008. He has
stated that on that day at about 9.00 a.m. he, along with the deceased
Arjun, had gone to the house of one Somnath Bhoi for purchasing fish.
The said Somnath Bhoi was not at his house and therefore they were
returning on the motorcycle of the deceased. Before returning, this
witness went near the hand-pump to drink water. When he turned
back, he saw that the accused nos.1 and 2 were assaulting the
deceased with swords on his head and ribs. Because of the assault,
Arjun fell down and thereafter the accused no.2 assaulted on his
abdomen. When this witness started shouting, the accused no.1
threatened him and the assailants ran away. He has deposed that he
saw 5 to 6 persons running away from the spot of the incident.
Thereafter, he has named the other accused nos.3 to 7 as the persons
who had run away. Thereafter, almost as an afterthought, he has
described as to how those 5 accused i.e. accused nos.3 to 7 assaulted
Arjun. According to him, accused no.7 Ankush assaulted the deceased
URS 8 of 19
9 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
with a stone on his arms and the other accused nos.3 to 6 assaulted
Arjun on his legs and back with scythes. He has stated that, he has
seen the incident from a distance of 25 ft. After the assailants ran
away, he went near Arjun who had died on the spot. Then this
witness went to the house of the deceased and informed his family
and returned to the spot with the family members. In the meantime,
somebody had already informed the police who came to the spot. He
narrated the incident to the police. His statement was recorded.
12. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that this
witness is an unnatural witness. He had no reason to be present at
the spot. They have invited our attention to the deposition of PW 9
Dr. Ukarande who, in his cross-examination, has stated that from the
presence or rigor mortis all over over the body, he was of the opinion
that the death must have taken place at least 12 hours before his
examination. The record shows that he had conducted the post-
mortem examination between 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 20/03/2008 which
means that the incident must have taken place at least before 4.00
a.m. on 20/03/2008. The learned Counsels, therefore, submitted that
the incident could not have taken placed at 9.00 a.m. as deposed by
the PW 8 Somnath. The learned Counsels have also questioned the
reasons given by this witness to be present at the spot with the
deceased at the time of the incident. They also submitted that the
prosecution has not brought on record the motive as to why the
accused committed murder of the deceased. They have further
submitted that the medical evidence does not support the narration
URS 9 of 19
10 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
given by this witness PW 8. They have further submitted that the
conduct of this witness is very unnatural and the recording of the FIR
given by him is a case of manipulation. They have invited our
attention to the fact that a copy of the FIR was forwarded to the
Magistrate after 4 days. They have also submitted that the recovery of
weapons and clothes is not proved by the prosecution by cogent
evidence. They have submitted that the recovery of weapons is either
from the open space or from the houses of the accused. There was no
reason for the police not to have searched their houses to recover the
weapons before their arrest. They have submitted that none of the
witnesses from near the spot of the incident or those who were
residing near the road leading from the spot to the house of the
deceased was examined. They further submitted that the prosecution
has not brought on record any evidence to show that there really was
any dispute in respect of the boundary of the land.
13. From the evidence of this witness PW 8, it does appear
that he had no reason to be with the deceased in village Sangam when
the incident took place. This witness tried hard to explain that he was
residing with the deceased since past 3 years prior to the incident and
was cultivating the land of the deceased. In the cross-examination,
the omission from his police statement that he was residing at Sangam
since past 3 years, was brought on record. The prosecution has not
examined any other witness to corroborate this fact to show that this
witness indeed was residing with the deceased. Significantly, this
witness had his own house and his own agricultural field at a very
URS 10 of 19
11 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
short distance of about 3 to 4 kms. Therefore, he had no reason to
reside with the deceased. He has also stated that his own field was
cultivated by himself and that the field of the deceased was cultivated
by the deceased himself with his own son Navnath. As far as the
dispute about the boundary is concerned, this witness PW 8 has not
given any cogent evidence. The only quarrel which he has referred to
had taken place about two years prior to the incident of murder and
therefore there was no immediate cause or reason for the accused to
commit the murder of the deceased. In para 6 of his cross-
examination, he has specifically admitted that the accused nos.1 to 7
had cordial relations with the deceased. In the circumstance, it is
hard to understand as to why the accused would commit the murder
of the deceased who was their close relative.
14. In respect of the main incident of assault itself, his
evidence is not very reliable. When he has described the incident,
firstly he has stated that the accused nos.1 and 2 assaulted the
deceased with swords on the head and abdomen and then he has
stated that the assailants ran away and thereafter again he has gone
on to explain how the other accused assaulted the deceased with their
weapons. This portion of his evidence appears almost as an
afterthought to give some role to the other accused. Moreover, his
evidence and the narration in respect of the manner of assault is not
exactly supported by the medical evidence, because, though he has
stated that the assailants assaulted the deceased with the weapons like
scythes on his back, there are no injuries on the back. This witness
URS 11 of 19
12 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
has stated that the accused nos.1 and 2 gave a forceful blow on the
ribs of the deceased after he had fallen on the ground. However, the
medical record shows that the injuries around that area had not
penetrated beyond half an inch. No major organs in the abdomen
were damaged. The most significant part of the medical evidence is
the time of death, as mentioned earlier, which is inconsistent with his
evidence. The evidence of the doctor shows that according his
opinion, the death had been caused at least 12 hours before the post-
mortem examination which was conducted between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00
p.m. on 20/03/2008. In that case, the time of the incident should be
4.00 a.m. or earlier on 20/03/2008. Even giving some latitude for the
approximation of his opinion, the time gap between 4.00 a.m. to 9.00
a.m. is a long gap and therefore it is necessary for the prosecution to
explain this discrepancy. This fact has to be tested in the light of the
circumstance that no other witness had seen the incident though there
were many houses in and around the area.
15. The spot panchanama is silent about the spot from which
this witness had seen the incident and there is no mention of the
hand-pump from where this witness had initially seen the incident.
The prosecution has not brought on record location of such hand-
pump. The spot panchanama does not show that any bag was found
at the spot. As per the evidence of this witness, both of them had
gone to the house of Somnath Bhoi to purchase fish and they were
carrying a bag for the said purpose. Finding of the bag would have
given credence to the story given by this witness PW 8 and absence
URS 12 of 19
13 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
thereof has weakened his evidence. Even this Somnath Bhoi is not
examined whose house was nearer to the spot.
16. Even otherwise, the conduct of this witness seems
unnatural. After the assailants had run away, he merely went near his
son-in-law. He did not raise any alarm and call for any help from the
people of the locality. He did not immediately try to give medical help
to the deceased. He had just walked a distance of one and half kms to
the house of the deceased and on his way, he has not informed
anybody and or has not sought any help; which, in itself, is unnatural
and difficult to believe.
17. By the time he returned to the spot, somebody had already
informed the police and they were at the spot. The prosecution
evidence is absolutely silent on this point as to who had informed the
police and what was the first information they had received and as to
how they reached at the spot at 10.30 a.m. The police station was at
least 20 to 22 kms away from the spot.
18. Recording of his FIR is also not above suspicion. The FIR
was lodged at about 12.15 p.m. However, he has admitted that after
the dead body was given to the relatives after the post-mortem, he
was taken to police station and his signature was obtained on the
statement. He was told that it was his complaint. This procedure,
coupled with the fact that this FIR was sent to the Magistrate after 4
days, raises doubt about the authenticity of the FIR.
URS 13 of 19
14 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
19. According to this witness PW 8, he and the deceased had
gone to purchase fish. It is difficult to understand as to how all the
accused came together and committed his murder at the spot and as
to how they came to know about the plan of the deceased to go to
purchase fish.
20. As far as the recoveries are concerned, the prosecution has
examined PW 2 Dattatraya Chandankar for recovery of sword and
clothes at the instance of accused no.1, scythe and clothes at the
instance of accused no.6 and scythe and clothes at the instance of
accused no.3. According to him on 26/03/2008, accused no.1 showed
willingness to produce sword and clothes. Importantly, this witness
has not deposed about the authorship of concealment of this witness
or the place where the sword and clothes were concealed by this
accused no.1. The sword was recovered from thorny bushes and the
clothes were recovered from the house of the accused no.1. The place
from where the sword was recovered was an open space and in the
absence of substantive evidence of the panch regarding the statement
leading to the recovery of weapon, this evidence cannot be said to be
proved by the prosecution. This recovery was effected on 26/03/2008
and it is difficult to understand as to why the police officers did not
search the house of the accused before that. On 29/03/2008, scythe
and clothes were recovered at the instance of the accused no.6 from
his house. Here again, the question remains why his house was not
searched for 9 days and in the substantive evidence of PW 2, there is
no reference of authorship of concealment and the statement
URS 14 of 19
15 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
mentioning the place which this accused no.6 had showed his
willingness to point out. On the same day at 4.00 p.m., scythe was
recovered at the instance of accused no.3 and clothes were recovered
from his house. Even here, recovery evidence is not proved by the
prosecution particularly because in the substantive evidence before
the Court, this witness has not narrated about the authorship of
concealment and the willingness to show the place on the part of this
accused no.6.
21. PW 3 Vijay Gaikwad was examined to show the recovery
of stick and clothes at the instance of accused no.8. The only eye
witness PW 8 has not spoken about the presence of this accused and
his part in the incident and therefore this recovery at his instance is of
no consequence. PW 8 has not referred to the accused no.8 in his
deposition. Neither any role is ascribed to him nor even his presence
is mentioned at the spot. However in the FIR, name of the accused
no.8 is mentioned and a role too is ascribed to him. Thus, it can be
seen that the said witness, while lodging the FIR at least, has
implicated one person i.e. the accused no.8 against whom he has not
deposed in the Court. That creates doubt about his inclusion of names
of other accused in the FIR and his deposition as a whole.
22. PW 4 Sugriv Bhosale was examined to prove the recovery
of sword and clothes at the instance of accused no.2. The sword was
seized from thorny bushes and which were accessible to all and the
clothes were produced from his house on 28/03/2008. Here again,
URS 15 of 19
16 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
there is no substantive evidence about the statement leading to such
recovery.
23. PW 5 Deepak Aute was examined to prove recovery of
scythe and clothes at the instance of accused no.3 Sudam Ingale from
his house. Here again, there is no substantive deposition about what
was the exact statement which led to the recovery of the weapon and
clothes. This witness has also deposed about production of clothes by
the accused no.7 in the police station on 30/03/2008. This
production in police station can hardly be described as the recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On 01/04/2008, at the
instance of accused no.5 Laxman Ingale, scythe and clothes were
recovered from his house. His statement is not mentioned in the
evidence of this witness. On 04/04/2008 at the instance of accused
no.4 Hanumant Ingale, scythe and clothes were recovered from his
house. Here again, the statement leading to the discovery is not
clearly mentioned in the deposition of this witness. In any case, this
recovery from the house is highly suspicious because the police should
have taken search of their houses immediately after coming to know
about their participation in the crime. In any case, in respect of this
recovery, the fact remains that the blood group on all these articles i.e.
clothes and weapons, is not determined. Therefore, all these articles
and clothes cannot be conclusively connected with the present crime.
24. PW 6 Appasaheb Algude was the panch for inquest
panchanama. He was also the nephew of the deceased and he has
URS 16 of 19
17 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
spoken about the quarrel between the deceased on one hand and
accused nos.1 and 2 on the other. However in the cross-examination,
it is brought on record that there was an omission from his police
statement that such incident had taken place in his presence. He has
also stated that there were cases, counter-complaints filed by both the
parties against each other. However, that is also an omission from his
police statement. Therefore, his evidence does not help the
prosecution in establishing its case.
25. PW 12 PHC Balasaheb Jadhav has deposed about the
information received at Akluj Police Station on 20/03/2008.
According to him at about 10.30 a.m., he received a phone-call about
a murder at village Sangem. He sent PSI Tanpure and other staff to
the spot of incident at about 10.35 a.m. At about 11.15 a.m., PSI
Tanpure asked him in respect of the next crime number which he gave
as Crime No.53 of 2008 of Akluj Police Station. At 12.10 p.m., PC
Kshirsagar came to the police station along with the complaint
recorded by PSI Tanpure. The said complaint was registered at 12.15
p.m. He has deposed that a copy of the FIR was given to the
complainant after one hour of the registration of the FIR which should
be around 1.15 p.m. However, the evidence of the complainant shows
that he had gone to the police station much later in the evening after
the post-mortem. He has admitted that a copy of the FIR was received
in the Court of JMFC, Malshiras, on 24/03/2008. There is no
explanation as to why the copy of the FIR was sent after 4 days and
thus, possibility of manipulation in the FIR is not ruled out.
URS 17 of 19
18 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
26. PW 13 Dy.S.P. Dhondopant Swami had conducted major
part of the investigation and had arrested some of the accused and
had effected the recovery. He has not very clearly explained as to why
the houses of the accused were not searched after the incident and
therefore the recovery from these houses becomes doubtful. He has
admitted that the sword recovered at the instance of the accused no.1
was recovered from an open space. He has further admitted that the
spots from which the swords were recovered at the instance of the
accused nos.1 and 2 were at a distance of 5 to 10 ft. from each other.
In that case, it was highly suspicious that the other sword was not
noticed when the first sword was recovered. Thus, we find that
recovery evidence led by the prosecution is very doubtful.
27. The evidence of the sole eye witness does not inspire
confidence. The other circumstantial evidence is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. No independent witness is examined. The motive
is not proved.
28. Considering the above discussion in respect of the
evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Appeals are allowed.
(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 30/11/2009 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras, in Sessions
URS 18 of 19
19 APEAL 1-10 & Others-Judgment.doc
Case No.34 of 2008, convicting all the Appellants, are hereby
set aside and the Appellants are acquitted of all the charges.
(iii) The Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 1010 are in jail.
They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other
case.
(iv) The Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.2 of 2010, 3 of 2010
and 37 of 2010 are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
(v) The Appeals are disposed off accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)
URS 19 of 19
