Munna @ Digvijay Sambhaji Nimhan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 7459 Bom

                                                 IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.939 OF 2019
                                    IN
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1176 OF 2019

1.         Munna @ Digvijay Sambhaji Nimhan
           Age - 28 Yrs., Occ - Business,
           R/at House No.220, S.No.1,
           Pashangaon, Near Laxmi Temple,
           Pune.
2.         Tushar Tanaji Nimhan
           Age - 39 years, Occ - Nil,

3.         Chetan Tanaji Nimhan
           Age - 33 years, Occ - Nil,
           Both R/at - Plot No.12, Tai Arcade,
           S.No.1, Pashangaon, Pune.                            ....Appellants

    Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Chaturshrugi Police Station
Pune.                                                           ....Respondent
                               ALONG WITH
                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.396 OF 2020
                                    IN
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1176 OF 2019
Rambhau @ Ramchandra Mahadev Nihman                             ....Applicant
In the matter between
Munna @ Digvijay Sambhaji Nimhan & Ors.                         ...Appellants
    Versus
The State of Maharashtra                                        ....Respondent


Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Gopalkrishna Shenoy i/by Mr. Vipin
Bidkar for the Applicants.
Ms. Ujwala Pawar i/by Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar for the Applicant in
IA/396/2020.
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State.

Aarti Palkar                                                                      1/17




::: Uploaded on - 13/05/2021                     ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2021 23:31:43 :::
                                                     IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc


CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND SURENDRA P.TAVADE, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 4th MAY, 2021
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 13th MAY, 2021



JUDGMENT (PER SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) :

1. The applicants/appellants have fled this application for bail and suspension of sentence imposed upon the applicants/appellants by the judgment and order dated 19.07.2019 in Sessions Case No.652 of 2013. They were prosecuted by Chaturshrugi Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 147, 148, 307, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC, 3(25) of the Arms Act and 37(1)/135 of Bombay Police Act. They have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fne of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fne, they have been directed to suffer further RI for three months each and for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fne of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fne they shall suffer further RI for three months each. They have challenged the said sentence by fling Criminal Appeal No.1176 of 2019, wherein the present application is preferred.

2. The facts of the present application can be summarised as under:-

On 12.04.2013 at about 10.30 p.m. deceased/Pratik Nimhan along with his friends including the informant/Kirti Ramdas Kale (PW-2), Deva Mane (PW-4) were chit-chatting near the Tennis Court in the vicinity of the

Aarti Palkar 2/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

bungalow of the informant/Kirti Ramdas Kale. When the deceased/Pratik decided to leave the said place, the informant and other persons started proceeding by chit-chatting in order to drop the deceased/Pratik near his vehicle. When they were near main road, some persons who were riding on 4 to 5 motorbikes including the applicants reached near them. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were holding revolvers in their hands and others were holding wooden handles and bamboo-sticks. On seeing the informant/Kirti and deceased/Pratik, Applicant Nos.2 and 3 abused and fred in the air. The other persons started hitting them by means of wooden handle. Due to the sudden attack, the informant and his friends including the deceased were frightened and started running helter-skelter. The informant and deceased turned back and started running towards the bungalow of informant, but they were chased by the motorcyclists. The informant hide himself in a dark at tennis court near his bungalow while the deceased entered in his bungalow. The applicants/appellants followed deceased by entering into the bungalow. The deceased/Pratik rushed into the bed-room of the father of informant which was situated at frst fioor of the bungalow. The applicants/appellants followed him and fred the bullets from their revolvers on the deceased, because of which he collapsed in pool of blood. Thereafter, the applicants/appellants threw their revolvers at the crime scene and left the bungalow when they were heard saying that they had eliminated the deceased and went away. The informant/Kirti reached to his bungalow and found his parents and brother were present on the spot. They found deceased lying in a pool of blood in the bedroom and two revolvers were lying beside the deceased.

Aarti Palkar 3/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

3. The incident was reported to Chaturshungi Police Station, Pune. Accordingly, the police rushed to the spot. The deceased/Pratik was taken to Sancheti Hospital where he was declared dead. Hence, his dead-body was referred for postmortem. The Investigating Ofcer recorded FIR of the informant/Kirti. The Investigating Ofcer prepared spot-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of the panch witnesses and seized the articles lying on the spot. The Investigating Ofcer also prepared inquest panchnama and collected postmortem report of the deceased/Pratik. The statement of witnesses were recorded. The seized weapons and other articles were sent to Chemical Analysis and ballistic experts for analysis. The applicants/appellants alongwith other accused- persons were arrested. Applicant No.1 came to be released on bail on 02.01.2014, but after his conviction he was taken into custody on 09.04.2019, hence, he is in custody since the said date. Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 14.04.2013 and they were in custody till 20.11.2014. Thereafter, from 09.12.2014 they are in custody till today.

4. In trial, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. On going through the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this order. It is contended that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 have undergone eight years sentence incarceration, which is in relation to life sentence. It is contended that the evidence of witnesses is completely inconsistent with medical and scientifc evidence and same should not be relied upon. It is contended that the alleged eye-witnesses deposed that

Aarti Palkar 4/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

Applicant Nos.2 and 3 shot the deceased with two revolvers, which were seized from the spot. The said revolvers are of 9 mm. calibre. The said revolvers were identifed by eye-witnesses in the Court as Article 'A' & 'B'. It is contended that one live and two emptee cartridges were recovered from the road and the room respectively, which were of 7.65 mm. calibre. It is contended that the third weapon of 7.65 mm. calibre alleged to have been used in the crime, but it was not seized. It is contended that the fatal injury No.4 was caused by 7.65 mm. calibre bullet, but no account of the said bullet was given by the prosecution. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the oral evidence and medical and scientifc evidence, which goes to the root of the matter. It is contended that when revolver which was used in the crime was not seized by prosecution, the applicants are entitled to be acquitted. It is contended that the applicants are simply claiming bail in the matter. There is a serious infrmities in the oral as well as medical evidence. Thus the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

5. It is contended that the eye-witnesses have deposed that the applicants had fred in air, but no bullets and empties were found on the road. It is contended that though there are fve bullet injuries on the person of deceased but only two empties and one bullet have been found in the bedroom where the incident was taken place. There is no account of two bullets and empties which creates serious doubt over the prosecution case. It is contended that there is possibility of planting of weapon as well as bullets and empties on the spot. It is contended that all x-ray plates of the deceased were not produced before the Forensic

Aarti Palkar 5/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

examiner as well as in the Court. It is contended that there is delay in sending bullets and other articles for analysis and no examination was given by the prosecution for the same, which also creates doubt about the seizer of the said articles. It is contended that intravenous canula mark was found on the hand of the deceased at the time of postmortem. The said injury shows that the deceased was given treatment before declaring him dead, but no evidence is produced on record to show that the deceased was taken to some other hospital for treatment. It is contended that according to prosecution, the deceased was frst taken to Sancheti hospital where he was declared dead, so there is no question of giving him treatment there, but the presence of intravenous canula establishes that he was given treatment, but the prosecution has not explained in which hospital the deceased was taken frst. It is contended that the evidence of informant/Kirti is full of omission and contradictory. He has changed his version, therefore, his evidence does not inspire confdence to believe it to be true. It is contended that eye-witnesses Kirti Kale and Deva Mane have not whispered regarding the presence of parents of the informant in the bungalow at the time of alleged incident. It is contended that the evidence of father of the informant namely Ramdas Kale is also not believable. It is contended that the trial court has not considered the evidence of eye-witnesses in proper perspective. There are glaring contradictions between the oral as well as expert's evidence. The site plant was not prepared. The examination of bullets regarding blood was not carried out. According to the prosecution, many persons witnessed the incident, but those are not examined. Similarly, the other witness who could throw some light on the prosecution case have not been examined,

Aarti Palkar 6/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

but the trial court has not considered all these lacunas and infrmities. It is contended that there is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal of the applicants. Therefore, they will ruin their life the jail. Therefore, they preferred present application. It is submitted that the trial court has wrongly convicted the applicants. Hence, it is contended that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, it is submitted that the evidence laid in the case is sufcient to convict the applicants, therefore, the trail court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. There are some discrepancies in the evidence, but those cannot wash out the entire prosecution case. It is contended that the applicants have committed heinous crime by entering into the bungalow and killed the deceased who was unarmed. The father of the deceased namely Rambhau Nihman intervened in the application and fled his protest application. He contended that the applicants used to give threats and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses. It is also contended that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 have fled forged writ of the court, bail bonds and got themselves released from the jail. They were prosecuted for said act in the Court of Magistrate by Case No. RCC/652/2013. The Applicant Nos.2 and 3 have been convicted for the said offence. It is contended that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail, hence, the said application be rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The learned Senior Counsel Shri. Amit Desai on behalf of the Applicants submitted that the Supreme Court has held that sentence

Aarti Palkar 7/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

should be suspended and bail be granted taken into consideration on various factors including the fact that the applicants have a good case on facts and in law. He relied on the following judgments:-

5. The following judgments are apposite in this regards: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu V. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., [(1978) 1 SCC 240] held as follows: "1. "Bail or jail?" - at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage - belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hinges on the lunch of the Bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. The Code is cryptic on this topic and the Court prefers to be tacit, be the order custodial or not. And yet, the issue is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.. Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Article 21. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, sufering lawful eclipse only in terms of "procedure established by law". The last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human right.

6. Let us have a glance at the pros and cons and the true principle around which other relevant factors must revolve. When the case is fnally disposed of and a person is sentenced to incarceration, things stand on a diferent footing. We are concerned with the penultimate stage and the principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant who seeks to be liberated, to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. In this perspective, relevance of considerations is regulated by their nexus with the likely absence of the applicant for fear of a severe sentence, if such be plausible in the case... Lord Campbell, C. J. concurred in this approach in that case and Coleridge J. set down the order of priorities as follows:

"I do not think that an accused party is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufcient probable grounds for the charge against him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial.. It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important: the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted."

7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is

Aarti Palkar 8/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

confrmed, also bears upon the issue.

"11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded custody. And If public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is limited, "commercial roots' of the applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expanse in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearances or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised...

14. Realism is a component of humanism which is the heart of the legal system. We come across cases where parties have already sufered 3, 4 and in one case (the other day it was unearthed) over 10 years in prison. These persons may perhaps be acquitted - difcult to guess. If they are, the injustice of innocene long in rigorous incarceration inficted by the protraction of curial processes, is an irrevocable injury. And, taking a pragmatic view, while life imprisonment may, in law, last a whole life, in practice it hardly survives ten years, thanks to rules of remission. Thus, at the most, the prisoner may have to serve some more years, and, at the best, law is vicariously guilty of dilatory deprivation of citizen's liberty, a consummation vigilantly to be vetoed. So, a circumstance of some consequence, when considering a motion for bail, is the period in prison already spent and the prospect of the appeal being delayed for hearing, having regard to the sufocating crowd of dockets pressing before the new Benches."

[See Also Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579]

9. In view of the above case-laws, we have to consider the facts of the present case and evidence laid thereupon.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case of Applicant No.1 is separable from the case of Applicant Nos.2 and 3. According to him, the witnesses have simply stated that Applicant No.1

Aarti Palkar 9/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

was present in the mob alongwith Applicant Nos.2 and 3, but he was not having any weapon in his hand. It is the case of the prosecution that Applicant No.1 entered into bungalow of the informant alongwith Applicant Nos.2 and 3, but he did not do any act or overact in the commission of offence. He submitted that during the pendency of the trial by considering his alleged role in the crime he was released on bail till he was convicted by the Sessions Court. The above facts are not denied by the prosecution. Even if the evidence of eye-witnesses is read as it is, it is simply established that Applicant No.1 was present alongwith Applicant Nos.2 and 3 and others on the spot. It is also established that Applicant No.1 had accompanied Applicant Nos.2 and 3 in the bungalow of the informant where the deceased had ran away. It appears that though Applicant No.1 had followed Applicant Nos.2 and 3, no act or overtact is attributed to him. Therefore, it can be said that the case of Applicant No.1 is on a different pedestal. Similarly, there are no allegation against Applicant No.1 that while on bail he had either tampered or threatened the witnesses in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, it is our considered view that Applicant No.1 is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal.

11. Now we have to consider the role played by the Applicant Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged crime. The eye-witnesses namely the informant (PW-

2), Deva Mane (PW-4) and Ramdas Kale (PW-5) have categorically stated that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 came alongwith other accused-persons and they were armed with revolvers, so the evidence on record prima facie established that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 were armed with frearms. It

Aarti Palkar 10/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

is also deposed by Deva Mane that when the applicants reached near the bungalow of the informant, Applicant Nos.2 and 3 had fred in the air. No doubt, no emptee or cartridges have been seized from the said place, but live cartridge of 7.65 mm. calibre was seized from the road. The facts proved on record through the oral evidence of eye-witnesses that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 had open fre in the air before entering into the bungalow of the informant. It was incumbent upon the investigating ofcer to search for emptees or cartridges from open place.

12. It is the case of prosecution that by seeing the applicants and other accused-persons, the informant, deceased and their friends running away helter-skelter. The informant went towards the tennis court which is situated near his bungalow. He hide himself in darkness. According to Deva Mane, he alongwith his brother followed the deceased in the bungalow of informant. He straight away went to bedroom situated at the frst fioor alongwith his brother. Deva Mane has also deposed that when he reached into the bedroom, he saw applicants with frearm, therefore, he alongwith his brother jumped out of the balcony and thereafter he heard the shots of fring, so it can be said that Deva Mane had not seen Applicant Nos.2 and 3 fring towards the deceased/Pratik. On this point, the evidence of Ramdas Kale is crucial because he is owner of the bungalow wherein the said incident had taken place. His presence on the spot is natural. According to him, he was standing in the entrance of the bungalow. He saw deceased/Pratik coming towards the bungalow followed by Deva Mane and his brother. Thereafter all others entered into the bedroom of frst fioor of the bungalow. He further deposed that the

Aarti Palkar 11/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

applicants followed deceased/Pratik upto the bedroom. He also followed the applicants. He further deposed that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 fred bullets on the person of deceased. Hence, he fell down in the pool of blood. Thereafter, the applicants throw their weapons on the spot. The applicants threatened him not to lodge police complaint about the incident and ran away. The evidence of Ramdas Kale is denied by the defence, but his presence on the spot is natural. He has point blank deposed that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 fred bullets on the person of deceased/Pratik; so from the evidence of eye-witnesses, it is established that the applicants followed the deceased/Pratik upto the bedroom of informant and thereafter fred at the deceased.

13. The learned defence counsel for the applicants has vehemently submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses is completely inconsistent with the medical and scientifc evidence. He submitted that the prosecution has seized two revolvers from the spot, one live cartridge and emptees/cartridge of 7.65 mm. calibre. He invited our attention to the evidence of ballistic expert, who stated that the bullet which caused injury No.4 was of 7.65 mm. Calibre. There are two injuries on the person of deceased caused due to bullet of 7.65 mm. calibre, but no weapon of 7.65 calibre was recovered from the spot or at the instance of the applicants. The prosecution has not given any explanation about the said glaring infrmity of prosecution witnesses. It is true that the Investigating Ofcer has not seized revolver of 7.65 mm. Calibre either from the spot of the incident or from the applicants, but admittedly, the injuries are caused to the deceased due to the bullet of 7.65 mm. cablibre revolver.

Aarti Palkar 12/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

14. Admittedly, the incident had taken place at about 10.30 p.m. The witnesses were frightened due to sudden attack. They had no opportunity to witness the make of revolvers, but their evidence is point blank clear that they saw Applicant Nos.2 and 3 holding revolvers, so there is possibility that the accused might have one more revolver in their hand by which they shot the deceased, otherwise there is no possibility of causing injury to deceased by bullet of 7.65 mm. calibre bullet.

15. One has to see the injuries sustained to the deceased. The said injuries are described in postmortem examination. The postmortem examination was carried out by PW-1/Dr. Harish Tatiya. He found that two frearm entry wound caused by 9 mm. Cartridges. One bullet was found in the body and one bullet was not seized which was existed from the body. Out of the 5 frearm injuries, two are caused by 7.65 mm. calibre bullet and other frearm entry wounds caused due to 9 mm. cablibre bullet, so it can be said that 9 mm. calibre revolvers were used in the crime. Those were found on the spot. It is brought on record that PW-5 Ramdas Kale saw Applicant Nos.2 and 3 threw revolvers on the spot while leaving the spot, so from the evidence it is established that the deceased/Pratik suffered injuries due to frearm of bullet from 9 mm. Calibre revolvers as well as 7.65 mm. Cablibre revolvers.

16. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that the fatal injury no.4 was caused by 7.65 mm. calibre bullet. Hence, the death of deceased was caused by 7.65 mm. calibre bullet but not explained by the prosecution, but the said statement is not completely true. The death of deceased was caused not only because of injury no.4, but death was

Aarti Palkar 13/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

caused due to multiple frearm injury and said injuries were sufcient to cause death in ordinary course of nature to cause death of human being.

17. On going through the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon, it is clear that injury nos.2 and 3 are also serious in nature and could have caused death of a deceased individually. The injury no.3 is frearm entry wound present on left pectoral region in midclavicular line, 10 cm. above and medical to left nipple 2 x 2 cm. abrasion collar of 0.5 cm. present inferolaterally reddish. Corresponding internal injury of injury no.1 is fracture present over left maxillary region 2.5 x 2 c.m. margins inverted, on dissection hemorrhagic and lacerated tract present with base of skull fractured through inferior and lateral of left orbit and left eyeball from injury no.1 as entry would and injury No.6 as exit wound as described under column No.17.

18. Firearms entry wound present over left cheek 3 cm. Below lateral canthus of left eye 2.5 x 2 cm. With abrasion collar of 0.5 cm. Inferomedially reddish in colour.

19. On going through the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon, it appears that injury nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are also serious in nature, which could cause death of a person individually and severally. Therefore, it cannot be said that as prosecution could not explain the use of 7.65 mm. calibre revolvers in the crime, hence, the entire prosecution case becomes redundant or falls on the ground. There is sufcient evidence on record to establish that Applicant Nos.2 and 3 used 9 mm. calibre revolvers in the crime and shot the deceased. Correspondingly, it is established through medical

Aarti Palkar 14/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

evidence, Autopsy Surgeon that the deceased had sustained injuries due to bullets of 9 mm. calibre revolver which resulted into his death.

20. Learned counsel for the applicants raised several contentions regarding presences of eye-witnesses Deva Mane and the informant on the spot. He submitted that the informant has changed his version by deposing that he saw the incident from the tennis court, which is brought on record as omission. Therefore, it is required to be ignored. He also submitted that the informant has deposed that he saw the incident from third fioor of the adjacent building, which is also unbelievable, but the fact remains on record that he was present on the spot when the incident started. He himself deposed that due to incident, he was frightened and he hide himself near the tennis court. So it is possible that he must have heard the sound of fre, but he immediately rushed to the spot after the incident and took the deceased to the hospital. So his presence on the spot cannot be denied. But he had seen the Applicant Nos.2 and 3 with frearms in their hands.

21. Learned counsel for the applicants has also raised several objections to the evidence to the recovery of articles and its dispatchment to the laboratory. It is true that there is delay in sending seized articles to CA, but the seals of articles were intact when those were received by the CA. There are some infrmities in the investigation and for which the Investigating Ofcer is responsible. Due to casual attitude of the Investigating Ofcer the prosecution case cannot be throw overboard. The lacunas raised by the learned counsel can be considered at the time of appreciation of entire evidence on record while deciding the appeal.

Aarti Palkar 15/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

22. The lacunas and infrmities can be attributed to the inaction of the Investigating Ofcer. On this point, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan v/s. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 can be referred. It has been held by the Apex Court as under:-

"There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the I.O. and whether due to such lapse any beneft should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confdence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to fnd out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses afected the object of fnding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation'.

23. At present one has to see the over view of the evidence to see whether there are glaring mistakes or defciencies in the evidence, which can create doubt about the incident itself.

24. In the present case, the incident has taken place in the bungalow of the informant. The incident has taken place at about 10.30 p.m. There is no possibility of plantation of weapon and other articles on the spot. Similarly, there is no possibility of false implications of the applicants. The applicants and deceased were having political rivalry. Therefore, it cannot be said that the false case was foisted upon the applicants by showing their presence in the bungalow of the informant at the night time.

Aarti Palkar 16/17

IA.939.2019 in Appeal.1176.2019.doc

25. Learned counsel for the applicants and the prosecution has relied on the case-laws, but the facts of the present case are peculiar in nature. Therefore, those are not squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of above discussion, we pass following order.

ORDER

1. The Application is partly allowed.

2. Applicant No.1 is ordered to be released on his executing PR bond of Rs.50,000/- and surety in the like amount with following conditions:-

(i) Applicant No.1 is directed not to threaten prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

(ii) Applicant No.1 is directed to attend Chaturshrugi Police Station on frst Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till disposal of the appeal.

3. The Application of Applicant Nos.2 and 3 is hereby rejected.

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.]                           [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]




Aarti Palkar                                                                         17/17