The State Of Maharashtra vs Maruti Chandrakant Yadav And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4630 Bom

                                            1/3                       7 Appeal 1057-2007.doc




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1057 OF 2007

The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of
Chandrakant Narsinha Bharankar,
R/o - Bhade, Age - 25 years,
Tal - Lanja, Dist. - Ratnagiri.                                ....Appellant
                                                               (Orig. Complainant)
                  V/s.

1. Maruti Chandrakant Yadav
Age - 44 years,
R/o - Gavkhadi, Ratnagiri.

2. Ramchandra Babaji Bodekar,
Age - 25 years,
R/o - Khanavali, Tal. - Lanja.

3. Pramod Pandurang Bodekar,
Age - 20 years,
R/o - Khanavali, Tal. - Lanja.

4. Pradeep Maruti Todankar,
Age - 35 years,
R/o - Bhalavali, Tal. - Lanja.

5. Velhal Waman Raut @ Baba Raut,
Age - 49 years,
R/o - Gavkhadi, Ratnagiri.                                     ....Respondents
                                                               (Orig. Accused)
                                            ----
Ms. P.N. Dabholkar, APP for State.
None for Respondents.
                                            ----

                                         CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 12th MARCH, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 27 th

January, 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri acquitting

Purti Parab

2/3 7 Appeal 1057-2007.doc

the respondents (hereinafter referred as accused) of offence punishable

under Section 429 (Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value

or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) , Section 286 (Negligent conduct

with respect to explosive substance) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

under Sections 5 (Punishment for making or possessing explosives under

suspicious circumstances) Sub Section 3 (1) (a) (Punishment for causing

explosion likely to endanger life or property) of Explosive Substances Act.

2. I have perused the evidence and the impugned judgment.

Learned APP in fairness and as an officer of the court agreed that the only

basis on which accused have been charged is because P.W. 1 heard an

explosion at 7.30 p.m. on 08/05/2003 and when he came to the road, he

saw Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 alongwith two others coming from the side of

the spot where explosion took place. The house of accused were searched

and nothing was found. Learned APP agreed that even if we go through the

cross-examination of P.W. 2, the road on which accused were seen on

08/05/2003 by the complainant and P.W. 2 was the main road in the area of

accused and accused are also residents of the same area living in the

vicinity. Learned counsel fairly stated that the finding of the Trial Court that

finding accused on the road cannot be treated as circumstances against

accused cannot be faulted. Even P.W. 3 panch witness has deposed that

police had called him to seize bombs from a particular place. P.W. 3 says " I

had enquired with the police as to where we were to go and for what

Purti Parab

3/3 7 Appeal 1057-2007.doc

purpose. Police told me that we were to visit the particular spot and to

seize the explosive bombs. When I went to the spot the police were already

there". Therefore even this evidence of P.W. 3 cannot be accepted.

3. In the circumstances, Appeal dismissed.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Purti Parab