Bombay High Court
Bal Sitaram Lahane And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2022
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, N. R. Borkar
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHERLA Date:
2022.02.01
16:13:31
+0500
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2000
1. Jagdish Bhagoji Lahane (Abated)
2. Ramu Sitaram Lahane
3. Bhagoji Dagadu Lahane (Abated)
4. Lahu Dagadu Lahane ..Appellants
(Org.Accused Nos.9,10,12 & 13)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(at the instance of Mangaon
Police Station, Dist. Raigad) ..Respondent
(Org. Complainant)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2000
1. Bal Sitaram Lahane
2. Balaram Babu Lahane (Abated)
3. Dhanaji Dagadu Lahane (Abated)
4. Babaji Dagadu Lahane
5. Bal @ Dinesh Tukaram Lahane (Abated)
6. Pandurang Vetu Khade (Abated)
7. Sitaram Dagadu Lahane
8. Dhondu Dhanaji Lahane
9. Narayan Babu Lahane ..Appellants
(Org.Accused Nos.1,2,4,5,6,
8,11,14 and 15)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ]
(at the instance of Mangaon ]
Police Station, Dist. Raigad) ] ..Respondent
(Org. Complainant)
Dinesh Sherla
1/14
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
-------
Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w. Mr. Atit Shirodkar for the Appellants.
Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for the Respondent - State
-------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
N.R.BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 28.07.2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 01.02.2022.
COMMON JUDGMENT (PER: N.R. BORKAR, J.)
1] Both these appeals are fled against one and the same
judgment and order dated 05.02.2000 passed by the II nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No. 89 of
1994. Both these appeals were therefore, heard together and
are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2] Appellant Nos.1 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2000
and appellant Nos.2,3,5 and 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of
2000 have expired during the pendency of present appeal.
3] The appellant Nos.2 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of
2000, who were accused Nos.10 & 13 respectively, and the
appellant Nos.1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 in Criminal Appeal No.129 of
2000, who were accused Nos.1,5,11,14 and 15 respectively
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
before the trial Court, were tried for the ofences punishable
under sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 323 read with 149 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). By the impugned
judgment and order, the trial Court convicted :
a] accused Nos.1,5,11,14 and 15 for the ofence
punishable under section 302 read with 149 of IPC and
sentenced them to sufer Life Imprisonment.
b] Accused Nos.1,5,11,14 and 15 are also convicted
for the ofence punishable under section 326 read with
149 of the IPC and sentenced to sufer R.I. for fve years.
c] Accused Nos.1,5,11,14 and 15 are also convicted
for the ofence punishable under section 323 read with
149 of the IPC and sentenced to sufer S.I. for three
months.
d] Accused Nos. 10 and 13 are convicted for the
ofence punishable under section 323 of the IPC and
sentenced to sufer R.I. for one year.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
4] It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased
Laxman Tukaram Lahane, on the date of incident, which took
place on 12.12.1993, was Sarpanch of village Surav, Tal.
Mangaon, Dist. Raigad. There was a political rivalry between
the deceased and persons from his party on one side and the
accused on the other side.
5] According to the prosecution, on the day of incident at
about 7.45 p.m., the deceased Laxman Lahane was sitting in
the courtyard of the house of Dashrath Lahane and was chit-
chatting with him. It is alleged that at that time, the accused
came there and started assaulting him by iron bar, knife, stick
and sickle. Dashrath Lahane tried to intervene, however,
according to the prosecution, he too was assaulted by the
accused.
6] According to the prosecution, the son of deceased, i.e.
PW-4 Dattaram Lahane was informed about the assault. He
came to the spot of incident. On seeing his father in injured
/dead condition, he got annoyed and started searching the
assailants. According to the prosecution, he too was assaulted
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
by the accused when he was in front of house of one Sanjay
Lahane.
7] The report in relation to incident was lodged. On the
basis of said report, crime vide crime No. 72 of 1993 was
registered for the ofences punishable under sections 147,148,
149, 323, 307 and 302 of the IPC for committing murder of
Laxman, attempt to kill Dashrath and causing hurt to PW-4
Dattaram. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet
was fled against the accused.
8] The accused were charged and tried for the aforesaid
ofences. As stated earlier, the trial Court by the impugned
judgement and order, convicted accused Nos.1,5,11,14 and 15
for the ofence punishable under sections 302, 326 and 323
read with 149 of IPC and accused Nos.10 and 13 for the
ofence punishable under section 323 of the IPC.
9] We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/
accused and learned APP for the respondent -State.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
10] The trial Court to convict the appellants/accused has
relied upon the evidence of following four eye-witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Smt. Sundar B. Karkare;
(ii) PW-2 Smt. Suman Kashiram Lahane;
(iii) PW-3 Smt. Janabai Chandrakant Lahane; &
(iv) PW-4 Dattaram Lahane.
11] According to PW-1, on the day of incident, there was post
marriage ceremony of one Sanjay Lahane and pre-marriage
ceremony of one Sakharam Lahane. Thus, as per the tradition
to perform certain rituals almost all the male members in the
village had gone to the temple which was located at the
outskirts of the village. According to her, at the time of
incident, the deceased Laxman was sitting in the courtyard of
the house of Dashrath and chit-chatting with him. According to
her, she was also there.
12] According to PW-1, at about 7.45 p.m., the accused
armed with stick, iron bar, knife and sickle came there. The
accused assaulted the deceased Laxman by sticks initially on
his legs and then on his head. According to PW-1, accused
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
No.7 repeatedly assaulted the deceased by knife on the
backside of his head. According to her, when Dashrath tried to
intervene, he too was assaulted. When she tried to intervene,
she too was assaulted by stick. According to her, the deceased
was assaulted by stones also.
13] In the cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that there
was no special reason for her to be at the house of Dashrath.
She has stated that she was not frightened even though the
accused were armed with weapons. According to her, she tried
to intervene only when Dashrath was being assaulted. She has
stated that the incident of assault was going on for one or two
minutes. She has further stated that PW-4 Dattaram did ask
her as to who assaulted his father, but she did not disclose the
names of assailants to him. She has further admitted that
there are two political parties in the village Surav, i.e. Congress
and PWP and her husband was the member of Congress party
and the deceased was also from Congress party.
14] The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
evidence of PW-1 is not consistent with the medical evidence.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
It is submitted that the conduct of PW-1 is also not natural. It is
submitted that the trial Court was thus not justifed in relying
upon the evidence of PW-1 to connect the appellants/accused
with alleged crime.
15] To examine the contention, we have perused the medical
evidence. According to PW-5 Dr. Raut, he conducted the
postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the
following external injuries:
1] Incised wound on left temporal region
A] 8 x 1 x bone deep;
B] 15 x 2 x bone deep with fracture skull under
lying
2] Incised wound behind left ear 10x 2 x bone deep.
3] C.L.W. Pinna and left ear.
4] Bruise left lower cut chest and left upper abdomen.
5] Abrasion left arm 1 x 1 cm.
6] Abrasion right hand 1 x 4½ cm.
7] C.L.W. right forehead 3x1x ½ cm.
8] C.L.W. right parietal region 3x 1 x ½ cm.
9] Bruise left parietal region 8x 8 cm.
16] PW-1 has specifcally deposed that the accused initially
assaulted the deceased by sticks on his legs. PW-5 Dr. Raut
has admitted in his cross-examination that no injury was
noticed on the legs of the deceased at the time of postmortem
examination. Thus, the medical evidence is not consistent with
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
the version of PW-1, which casts doubt about her claim being
eye witness to the incident. Apart from it, PW-1 has admitted
that when PW-4 the son of the deceased reached to the place
of incident, he did ask her the names of assailants but she did
not disclose the names of assailants to him. The only inference
which can be drawn from this conduct of PW-1 is that either
she had not seen the incident or that the assailants were not
known to her. According to PW-1, she tried to intervene only
when Dashrath was being assaulted. This conduct is also not
natural. Considering these facts and circumstances, it would
not be safe to rely upon the evidence of PW-1 to connect the
appellants/accused with alleged crime.
17] Next eye-witness is PW-2 Suman Lahane. According to
her, at the time of incident, the deceased Laxman and her
father-in-law Dashrath were sitting in the courtyard of their
house and were chit-chatting. According to her, the accused
armed with stick, iron bar, knife and sickle came there and
started assaulting the deceased Laxman. According to her,
when her father-in-law Dashrath tried to save Laxman from
assault, the accused started assaulting him. According to her,
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
after assault all the accused went towards the house of Sanjay
Kuthan. After some time, PW-4 Dattaram came to the place of
incident. She disclosed to him that persons from rival group
assaulted to his father. According to her, PW-4 Dattaram then
went towards the house of Sanjay Kuthan.
18] In the cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that she did
not disclose the names of assailants to anybody else except
police. She has further admitted that she knows one Laxman
Mahadev and on the day of incident, he too was assaulted. PW-
2 has stated that she did not try to intervene while the
accused were assaulting the deceased Laxman and her father-
in-law Dashrath as she was holding her one year old baby on
her shoulder. PW-2 has however, then admitted that in her
statement to the police, she has not stated that at the time of
incident, she was holding her one year old baby on her
shoulder.
19] The conduct of PW-2 is somewhat similar to conduct of
PW-1. She also did not disclose the names of assailants to
PW-4 nor she disclosed the names of assailants to anybody
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
else. Thus, the only inference which can be drawn from this
conduct of PW-2 is that the assailants were not known to her.
PW-2 has admitted that she did not try to intervene, when the
accused were assaulting the deceased Laxman and her father-
in-law Dashrath, as according to her, her one year old baby
was on her shoulder. Though the version of PW-2 that her one
year old baby was on her shoulder is improved version, still it
is difcult to accept that one would not try to intervene and
would watch the incident like mute spectator. Thus, it would
not be safe to rely upon the evidence of PW-2 to connect the
accused with alleged crime.
20] Another eye-witness is PW-3 Janabai Lahane. According
to her, on the day of incident, the accused armed with various
weapons came to the house of Dashrath and then assaulted
the deceased Laxman. She got frightened and ran towards the
temple to call her sons. When she came back, Laxman was
lying at the place of incident, in dead condition.
21] In the cross-examination, PW-3 has admitted that on the
day of incident there were two marriages in the village. PW-3
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
has admitted that at the time of incident she was standing in
the courtyard of her house. She has admitted that she did not
witness the assault on the deceased Laxman as she
immediately ran towards temple. She has admitted that she
has not shown her house to the police. She further admitted
that she belongs to the rival party of the accused.
22] PW-3 does not appear to be witness to the actual assault.
Admittedly, PW-3 was not at the place of incident. She has not
shown her house to the police. There are contradictions and
omissions in the evidence of PW-3. Considering these facts and
circumstances, in our view it would not be safe to rely upon
the evidence of PW-3 also to connect the accused with alleged
crime.
23] Admittedly, PW-4 Dattaram Lahane is not the eye-witness
to the alleged assault on his father (the deceased). PW-4 has
admitted that, while going towards the house of Sanjay he was
angrily shouting 'who has caused the death of his father and
till that time he was not knowing as to who had assaulted his
father'. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
of PW-4 to connect the accused with the alleged assault on the
deceased.
24] Apart from above, according to the prosecution, Dashrath
was assaulted when he tried to save the deceased from the
assault of the accused. He, therefore, would have been the
best witness in relation to the alleged incident. However, he
has not been examined. Admittedly, there was political rivalry
between the parties. The possibility of false implication,
therefore cannot be ruled out.
25] Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, the trial Court was not justifed in convicting the accused.
In the result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
A] Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2000 and Criminal
Appeal No. 129 of 2000 are allowed.
B] The impugned judgment and order dated
05.02.2000 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-128-129-2000.doc
Raigad in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1994 convicting
accused No.1 Bal Sitaram Lahane, accused No.5 Babaji
Dagadu Lahane, accused No.11 Sitaram Dagadu Lahane,
accused No.14 Dhondu Dhanaji Lahane and accused
No.15 Narayan Babu Lahane for the ofence punishable
under sections 302, 326 and 323 read with 149 of the
IPC and accused No.10 Ramu Sitaram Lahane and
accused No.13 Lahu Dagadu Lahane for the ofence
punishable under section 323 of the IPC is set aside and
they are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
C] Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
D] The fne, if any, paid by accused Nos.1,5,10, 11,13,
14 and 15, be refunded to them.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]
Dinesh Sherla
