Bombay High Court
Siddaram Hanmant Dudhbhate And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 February, 2021
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
1/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.453 OF 2020
1. Siddaram Hanmant Dudhbhate ]
Residing at Village Hotagi Maddiwasti, ]
Taluka South Solapur, Dist-Solapur ]
]
2. Aarif Asif Shaikh ]
Residing at House No.33, Keshav Nagar, ]
Sadar Bazar, Solapur ]
]
3. Ambadas Govind Sakhare ]
Residing at Patil Nagar, Behind Hotel ]
Chetan, Solapur ] .. Appellants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of MIDC Police Station ]
District Solapur Vide C.R.No.926/2020) ]
]
2. Soni Anil Dede ]
Residing Footpath near Banshankari ]
Hotel, ]
MIDC, Solapur ] .. Respondents
Mr.Vikram V. Phatate for the Appellants.
Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04th FEBRUARY, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th FEBRUARY, 2021
M.M.Salgaonkar
::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 20/02/2021 20:14:37 :::
2/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. By this appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989), the appellants have
challenged the order dated 2nd November, 2020 whereby their bail
applications were rejected. The appeal specifically refers to the
impugned order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur on Exhibit-5 in Special Case
No.356 of 2020 wherein application for bail filed on behalf of the
appellant Nos.1 and 2 was rejected. At the same time, the bail
application bearing Exhibit 3 in the same case pertaining to
appellant No.3 was also rejected. The present appeal has been filed
by all the three aforesaid accused/appellants, in order to claim that
they are entitled for the relief of grant of bail.
2. In the present case, FIR dated 14th July, 2020 came to be
registered against appellant No.3 and others pertaining to death of
brother of respondent No.2 (original complainant). The dead body
of the victim was found on 13th July, 2020. Respondent No.2 had
approached the police stating that the deceased was her brother,
who had been assaulted by appellant No.3 and others, which had
resulted in his death. Pursuant to registration of FIR, investigation
was undertaken and the police not only arrested appellant No.3, but
also appellant Nos.1 and 2 on the basis that the investigation had
revealed active role of all the three appellants in the death of the
victim. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on
28th September, 2020.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
3. The appellants filed bail applications before the court below,
claiming that there was no causal connection between the incident
that was attributed to them dated 12th July, 2020 and the dead body
of the victim being found on the next day i.e. on 13 th July, 2020. It
was claimed that even if the alleged assault carried out by the
appellants on 12th July, 2020 was to be taken into consideration,
there was nothing to show that the said incident had caused the
death of the victim. The last seen theory sought to be applied is also
disputed for the reason that the victim, even as per the allegations
levelled against the appellants, had left their custody in the evening
of 12th July, 2020 and his dead body was found on the next day in
the afternoon.
4. The court below took into consideration the aforesaid factors,
particularly statements made by certain witnesses and thereupon
came to the conclusion that the appellants did not deserve to be
enlarged on bail.
5. In the present appeal, Mr.Phatate, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants, vehemently submitted that the appellants were
sought to be implicated purely on conjectures and surmises. It was
submitted that even if the statements of the witnesses recorded
during investigation were to be taken into consideration, there was
nothing to show that the appellants may be held responsible for the
death of the victim. It was submitted that the postmortem report on
record clearly indicated that the major wound found on the body of
the deceased was after his death and it was due to stray dogs eating
one of the legs of the deceased. It was submitted that the said
report did not indicate that the alleged role of the appellants had
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
anything to do with the death of the victim. It was further
submitted that the bail applications of the appellants ought not to
have been rejected only because they were alleged to have
committed a serious offence. It was submitted that none of the
ingredients of offences under the Indian Penal Code or the Act of
1989 are made out on the basis of the material on record and,
therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Mr.Yagnik, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1/State, opposed the present appeal and he submitted that there
were eye witnesses to the incident that took place on 12 th July, 2020,
when the appellants had physically beaten up the victim and they
had also assaulted minor daughter of respondent No.2, who had also
given statement to the police. It was submitted that there were eye-
witnesses to the manner in which the victim was assaulted by the
appellants and that the statements given by such eye-witnesses read
with the statements of respondent No.2 and her daughter, clearly
connect the appellants to the incident that took place on 12 th July,
2020. It was submitted that such statements not only indicated the
involvement of the appellants in the death of the victim, but they
also indicated their utterances, which would show that the offences
under the Act of 1989 were also committed in the present case. It
was submitted that there was possibility of witnesses being
threatened, if the appellants were granted bail.
7. Although respondent No.2 was served in the matter, none
appeared on her behalf.
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
8. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/
State, we have perused the material available on record. The
statement of minor daughter of respondent No.2 shows that she
alongwith the victim i.e. her maternal uncle, were detained by the
appellants on 12th July, 2020 in the afternoon, on the allegation that
he had stolen a cable wire. Appellant No.3 was the watchman of the
premises from where the victim had allegedly stolen the cable wire,
while the other appellants were also concerned with the owner of
the said premises. In her statement, the minor daughter of
respondent No.2 described in detail, how she and the victim were
detained by the appellants and in the process, they assaulted the
victim by alleging that he had stolen the cable wire. The appellants
allegedly also gave a blow on the hand of the said minor daughter of
respondent No.2 while asking about the details as to how the stolen
cable wire was disposed of. In her statement, the minor daughter of
respondent No.2 referred to the presence of a person nearby, who
had seen the incident.
9. There is also a statement of one Subhashchandra Arjun
Mashale. In his statement, recorded during the course of
investigation by the police, the said person specifically named all the
three appellants as having detained the victim and the said minor
daughter of respondent No.2. He also described the manner in
which the appellants assaulted the victim while asking him as to
how he had stolen the cable wire. It is specifically stated that they
assaulted the victim by means of cable wire and PVC pipe. It was
also stated by the said person that respondent No.2 had reached the
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
place of incident and in her presence also, the appellants had
assaulted the victim. This is confirmed by the statement of
respondent No.2 herself.
10. There is also a statement of Shrishail Inchagiri, who stated
that appellant No.2 was working as supervisor at the office of the
nearby premises where construction was being undertaken. This
person further specifically named all the three appellants and he
described the manner of assault that they carried out on the victim
in the same manner in which the said Subhashchandra Mashale had
described. Thus, there are atleast four eye-witnesses, including the
said minor girl, who saw the manner in which the appellants
assaulted the victim and caused injuries to him on the allegation that
he had stolen the cable wire.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants placed much emphasis on
statements of other persons recorded by the police during
investigation wherein it was stated that the body of the victim was
found on 13th July, 2020 with stray dogs roaming around, thereby
emphasizing that the major injury suffered on the leg of the victim
was a result of being attacked by such stray dogs. Much emphasis
was also placed on the statement given by the person during the
investigation, who had stated that the victim himself had claimed
before that person about having been assaulted by the persons of
"Karkhana". It is submitted that the said statement clearly belied the
assertions made by the said eye-witnesses and certainly raises
suspicion about the manner in which the incident has been
described by the so called eye-witnesses.
M.M.Salgaonkar
7/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the said
contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. We have perused the
material on record in detail and at this stage, we find that the
involvement of the appellants is prima facie made out on the basis of
the statements of eye-witnesses as also the statement of respondent
No.2 and her minor daughter, who had infact, accompanied the
victim when he was beaten up by the appellants on 12 th July, 2020.
In this backdrop, the emphasis placed by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants on the statements of other witnesses
and the fact that in the postmortem report, the opinion as to cause
of death was reserved, will not take the case of the appellants for
grant of bail any further. We are of the opinion that the material on
record is appreciated in the correct perspective by the court below,
while rejecting the bail applications of the appellants.
13. Further, we also find from the record that the test
identification parade was carried out wherein the minor daughter of
respondent No.2 has identified the three appellants as the persons,
who had assaulted the victim on 12th July, 2020. This is also a
relevant factor indicating that there is sufficient prima facie material
against the appellants in the present case.
14. Considering the strata of society to which respondent No.2
and her minor daughter belong and the manner in which, they have
described the assault carried out by the appellants on the victim, we
are of the opinion that there is a possibility of respondent No.2, her
minor daughter and the eye-witnesses also being presurrised, if the
appellants are directed to be released on bail. Hence, we find that
there is no merit in the present appeal.
M.M.Salgaonkar
8/8 Judgment APEAL-453-20.doc
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. However, we
direct the trial court to expedite the proceedings in the trial so as to
complete the same as early as possible, and in any case, within a
period of one year from today.
16. The observations made here-in-above are, prima facie, in
nature and confined to the adjudication of present appeal only.
17. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
