Bombay High Court
Dadaji @ Yogesh Karbhari Ingle vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 September, 2022
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2014
1. Devidas Bhimrao Borse,
Age : 41 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Vjirkhede, Tq. Malegaon,
Dist. Nashik.
2. Ambadas Bhimrao Borse, ...Appellants
Age : 41 years, Occ. Agri, (Orig. Accused
R/o. Vjirkhede, Tq. Malegaon, Nos. 1 and 4)
Dist. Nashik.
(At present both lodged in
the Nashik Central Jail)
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
...Respondent
Vander - Khakurdi Police Station,
Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2014
Dadaji @ Yogesj Karbhari Ingle,
Age : 23 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Vjirkhede, Tq. Malegaon,
Dist. Nashik. ...Appellant
(Orig. Accused
(At present lodged in No. 3)
the Nashik Central Jail)
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
...Respondent
Vander - Khakurdi Police Station,
Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik.
***
Umesh Malani Page 1 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2022 16:51:00 :::
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w Ms. Shubhada D. Khot for
Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2014.
Mr. Manoj S. Mohite, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Shantanu
Phanse for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 519 of
2014.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent - State.
***
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : JULY 01, 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
JUDGMENT (PER PRASANNA B. VARALE, J)
1. These Criminal Appeals take an exception to
the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, At: Malegaon, District Nashik, in
Sessions Case no. 22 of 2009, dated 20th May, 2014,
whereby the Appellants - Original Accused who were
charged for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 302 & 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') convicted and
awarded sentence for life imprisonment along with fine.
2. As the above Appeals arises out of common
judgment and order, matters are tagged together.
3. The case of prosecution as disclosed through
the version of Jibhau Totaram Bhadane (PW 1) the
complainant and injured victim is as follows:
Umesh Malani Page 2 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
As per the prosecution case, there was a
Gramsabha on 23rd October, 2008 at about 09.00 am near
Vaijrkhede Mahadeo Mandir, therefore, Sarpanch, Deputy
Sarpanch, the members of Grampanchayat, the people of
village gathered there. As per the case of prosecution,
due to death of one villager, i.e., mother of Madhukar
Thakur occurred that day, hence, Deputy Sarpanch
requested to defer the said Gramsabha. However, the
accused persons refused to postpone the meeting. On
that count, the altercations started. The accused
Devidas Borse then assaulted Vasant by means of knife.
He assaulted with knife on his back, but, he did not
receive any injury. It is the case of prosecution that
Gokul (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') son of
Jibhau (PW 1) came forward. Deceased caught by accused
Dadaji Ingle, Sanjay Borse and Ambadas Borse and
deceased was fallen on the ground. Then deceased was
subjected to an assault by means of sharp weapon on his
chest and stomach at the hands of Devidas Borse and
other accused persons assaulted him by fists and kick
blows. Then villagers came to rescue deceased. Then by
arranging an auto rickshaw deceased was shifted to
Wadia Hospital, Malegaon. On reaching to hospital,
Umesh Malani Page 3 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
doctor examined deceased and declared him dead. On the
same day, Jibhau Totaram Bhadane (PW 1) lodged report
with the police.
4. On lodgment of report, the investigating
agency set in motion. The other formalities of
investigation such as, recording the statement of
witnesses, drawing necessary panchnamas, seizure of
clothes and weapons, forwarding articles for chemical
analysis, obtaining CA reports and postmortem report,
etc. were done. By completing necessary formalities,
charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class. As the offences being
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. Learned Trial Court, on appreciation of
evidence, hold that the accused persons guilty for
commission of offences under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of IPC and awarded sentence. Being aggrieved
by the said judgment and order of conviction, the
present Criminal Appeals were filed.
6. Mr. Niteen Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing
Umesh Malani Page 4 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
for Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2014
vehemently submitted that the Trial Court grossly erred
in appreciating the evidence and arrived at an
erroneous conclusion. Mr. Pradhan further submitted
that admittedly the alleged incident of assault is
subsequent to Gramsabha and as per the evidence of the
prosecution itself there were more than 200 to 300
people attended the said Gramsabha. As per the
prosecution evidence, there was demand of deferment of
Gramsabha and all the accused persons resisted the said
demand and there was a quarrel followed by the free
fight. Thus, it was the submission of Mr. Pradhan that
in such a melee of more than 200 people, it was
difficult for any witness to give a clear account of
the incident, the number of assailants, the weapons
being used by the said assailants, assault being laid
on the victims and as such, the version of so called
eye witnesses is nothing but a guess work. It is
further submitted that the prosecution case rests on
two alleged eye witnesses and other two eye witnesses
turned hostile and they do not support the case of
prosecution and learned Trial Court erred in relying on
version of two witnesses for a reason that said two
Umesh Malani Page 5 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
witnesses are interested witnesses. It is further
submitted that in so far as Jibhau (PW 1) is concerned,
there are many contradictions and omission in his
version. Jibhau (PW 1) admits that there was no enmity
between him or his family members and accused persons.
Mr. Pradhan also submitted that the Jibhau (PW 1) is
unable to specify the alleged weapon used by the
Appellants particularly, Devidas. There is also
discrepancy about the weapon between Jibhau Bhadane (PW
1) and Madhukar Bhadane (PW 6). It is further submitted
that one of the witness referred to the weapon as
'Suri' and another witness refers the same weapon as
'Gupti'. It is further submitted that though the other
so called eye witnesses have turned hostile, perusal of
their evidence would show that they are not supporting
the case of prosecution firstly, and secondly, there
are many discrepancies.
7. Mr. Pradhan further submitted that though
prosecution examined Dr. Laxman Chavan (PW 8) and Dr.
Mahesh Telrandhe (PW 9), the medical evidence falls too
short to support the prosecution case. By inviting our
attention to the cross-examination of Dr. Chavan (PW
Umesh Malani Page 6 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
8), Mr. Pradhan submitted that admittedly the weapon
allegedly used in the assault were not shown to the
medical officer as such, the prosecution failed to
establish that the injuries suffered by the deceased
and other injured were caused by these weapons. It was
also submitted that Dr. Mahesh Telrandhe (PW 9) who had
examined Madhukar Bhadane (PW 6) had not noticed any
injury on stomach of Madhukar Bhadane (PW 6), on the
contrary, the medical officer only makes reference of
abrasion over stomach as such, for abrasion it is not
necessary to suffer an injury by weapon. It is also
submitted that on similar set of material evidence,
learned Trial Judge acquitted some of the accused
whereas on the very set of evidence, the Appellants are
convicted.
8. Mr. Pradhan further submitted that even though
the prosecution submitted that the weapons and clothes
seized were forwarded for chemical analysis and the CA
report throws no light on any material aspect as such,
the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Mr. Pradhan further submitted that
assuming and not admitting that the Appellants played
Umesh Malani Page 7 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
same role in the incident, the act of the Appellants
was not pre-meditated, but, sudden act on provocation
of large gathering as such, the offence committed by
the Appellants would not fall under Section 302 of IPC
but it would be an offence under Section 304 II of IPC.
9. Mr. Pradhan further submitted that as per the
version of witnesses, four to five weapons were used in
commission of crime by two accused. It is stated by the
witnesses that weapons like knives and gupti were used.
It is also the case of the prosecution that the weapons
recovered were being used having blood stains. Mr.
Pradhan further submitted that as per the medical
evidence the deceased suffered two injuries. Mr.
Pradhan further submitted that firstly the weapons were
shown to Dr. Laxman (PW 8), who had examined witness
Dnayneshwar, Madhukar and Vasant and conducted autopsy
of Gokul, only in the Court and as such, while issuing
the medical certificate these weapons were not shown to
the doctor. It is then submitted by Mr. Pradhan that
though the prosecution tried to submit before this
Court that Dnyaneshwar and Vasant suffered injuries and
the medical evidence to that effect were relied on but
Umesh Malani Page 8 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
the witnesses, namely, Dnyaneshwar and Vasant
themselves denied that they had suffered any injury.
10. Mr. Pradhan further submitted that Dr. Laxman
(PW 8) admitted in his cross-examination that he had
not brought any notes with him. It is also submitted
that it was incumbent on the doctor who had conducted
the postmortem to prepare the notes and in absence of
such notes there is no assurance to the case of
prosecution. In support of this submissions, Mr.
Pradhan made reference to an book by Dr. Parekh. It was
also submitted that the alleged recovery of weapons is
not believable for the reason that one of the panch to
the recovery panchnama turned hostile and second panch
was not examined by the prosecution.
11. Mr. Pradhan, in support of his submissions,
placed reliance on following judgments: Mahavir Singh
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, Taki Ahmed Khalil Amhed
Khan and others Vs. State of Maharashtra 2, Kartarey and
Others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh3, Ishwar Singh Vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh4 & Amar Singh Vs. The State
1 (2016) 10 SCC 220
2 2005 CRI.L.J. 4801
3 (1976) 1 SCC 172
4 (1976) 4 SCC 355
Umesh Malani Page 9 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
of (NCT of Delhi)5. Thus, Mr. Pradhan prayed that Appeal
may be allowed.
12. Mr. Mohite, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2014
submitted that as per the case of prosecution the
sequence of events relates to three incident; firstly,
on account of meeting the members have gathered and
there were two groups, secondly, the deferment of the
meeting was opposed and dispute arose and thirdly,
there was chaotic situation. It is then submitted that
in so far as the first incident is concerned, there was
only a gathering of people on account of Gramsabha, but
in the second part a reference is made to quarrel and
that quarrel was between Accused No. 1 and some of the
members. There is no material brought on record to
submit that at that time the Accused No. 3 was present
and participated in any assault. Mr. Mohite further
submitted that in so far as the third party / incident
is concerned, deceased reached on the spot and then
there is a general allegation that accused nos. 1, 2
and 3 fell him down. As per the case of prosecution
accused no. 1 who was armed with knife gave a blow to
5 (2020) 19 SCC 165
Umesh Malani Page 10 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
deceased. It is further submitted that there is no
material brought on record by the prosecution to show
that the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 were carrying any
common intention so as to laid an attack on deceased.
It is also submitted that there is variance in so far
as the version of complainant before the Court and
disclosure in first information report. In support of
his submissions, Mr. Mohite, relied on following
judgments: Balu alias Bala Subramaniam and Another Vs.
State (UT of Pondicherry)6 & Gadadhar Chandra Vs. State
of West Bengal7. Thus, Mr. Mohite, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Appellant, prayed that Appeal may
be allowed.
13. Per contra, learned APP submitted that even
though there was a mob of 100 to 200 person, it was not
necessary for the investigating agency to record the
statement of each and every member of the mob nor it
was practicable. Learned APP further submitted that the
eye witnesses gave a truthful account of incident,
sequence of events, presence of the accused and their
participation, and version of these eye witnesses
6 (2016) 15 SCC 471
7 2022 DGLS (SC) 312
Umesh Malani Page 11 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
particularly Jibhau (PW 1) - complainant and Madhukar
(PW 6) inspires confidence of the Court. Learned APP
further submitted that it is observed in various
judgments of this Court as well as judgments of the
Hon'ble the Apex Court that it is the quality of the
witnesses and not the quantity of the witnesses which
matters and in the present case particularly the eye
witnesses is of a sterling nature. Learned APP by
inviting our attention to the testimony of Jibhau (PW
1) submitted that Jibhau specifically refers in detail
the presence of the accused and particularly the
accused before this Court and their participation.
Though an attempt was made before this Court that the
Appellant - Yogesh was not present at the spot nor he
participated in the commission of crime, but it is
clearly brought on record that accused Dadaji is known
as Yogesh and in the charge-sheet also reference to
Dadaji is Dadaji @ Yogesh. Learned APP further
submitted that testimony of Madhukar (PW 6) who is also
an injured eye witness establishes the presence of
accused and the participation of accused Dadaji @
Yogesh.
Umesh Malani Page 12 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
14. Learned APP further submitted that Madhukar
(PW 6) in his testimony specifically stated that
accused Dadaji @ Yogesh assaulted by weapon suri on his
stomach. Learned APP further submitted that Jibhau (PW
1) in his testimony clearly stated about the presence
of Madhukar (PW 6).
15. With the assistance of learned Counsel, we
have gone through the vernacular testimony of these
witnesses and we find merit in the statement of learned
APP that the testimony of witness Madhukar (PW 6)
clearly refers the presence of the accused Appellant
and their active participation in the crime.
16. Learned APP further submitted that even though
there was a mob of many person, but as they were the
residents of the village, they were knowing each other
and having a close acquaintance to each other being the
fellow villagers. Thus, the submission of learned APP
was in counter to the submission of Mr. Pradhan and Mr.
Mohite in respect of identification of the accused
persons by the witnesses.
In our opinion, there is merit in the
submission of learned APP.
Umesh Malani Page 13 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
17. Learned APP further submitted that the medical
evidence in the form of witness Dr. Laxman Chavan (PW
8) and Dr. Mahesh Telrandhe (PW 9) is a supporting
evidence.
18. The prosecution also established that the
injury caused to Madhukar (PW 6) was grievous in
nature. The medical certificate shows that Madhukar (PW
6) was admitted in the hospital for 7 days. Thus, it is
the submission of learned APP that the use of weapon
and the injury caused to Madhukar (PW 6) clearly shows
the intention of Appellant Dadaji @ Yogesh. Thus,
learned APP submitted that conviction of the Appellants
under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC
recorded by the Trial Court is justified.
19. Learned APP submitted that the evidence
clearly shows that the Appellant persons were armed
with deadly weapon like chopper and knife and these
weapons were used for an assault on deceased and
Madhukar (PW 6) suffered grievous hurt due to the
assault as such, it cannot be said that there was no
intention of the Appellants and it was an act of sudden
Umesh Malani Page 14 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
provocation. Learned APP relied on following judgments:
Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan8, State of M.P. Vs.
Ramji Lal Sharma and Another9 & Balraje alias Trimbak
Vs. State of Maharashtra10. Thus, learned APP prayed
that Appeals may be dismissed.
20. With the assistance of learned Counsel
appearing for respective parties, we have gone through
the entire material placed on record.
21. It is not in dispute that in support of its
case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and out of
these 13 witnesses, two witnesses are eye witnesses,
two witnesses are on the aspect of the medical
evidence, seven witnesses are hostile, and other
witnesses are police officials including investigating
officers.
22. Dnyaneshwar Balkrishna Bhadane (PW 2), Vasant
Bhadane (PW 3), Baban Rajaram Nikam (PW 4), Dilip
Pundlik Yalij (PW 5), Natthu Tiku Choudhary (PW 7),
Ashok Bhagwan Hyalij (PW 10) & Sopan Hari Sonawane (PW
11), are hostile witnesses. It may not be necessary for
8 (2004) 10 SCC 657
9 Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022, decided on March 9, 2022.
10 (2010) 6 SCC 673
Umesh Malani Page 15 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
us to refer to version of these witnesses.
23. Firstly, we may discuss the version of medical
witnesses, i.e., Dr. Laxman Chavan (PW 8) and Dr.
Mahesh Telrandhe (PW 9), so as to ascertain whether the
deceased had died homicidal death?
24. Dr. Laxman Chavan (PW 8) deposed before this
Court that on 23-10-2008 he was attached to Wadia
Hospital, Malegaon. On that day he had examined
Dnyaneshwar (PW 2), hostile witness, Madhukar Daulat
(PW 6), Vasant (PW 3), hostile witness, and deceased
Gokul. This witness found following injuries on the
person of deceased:
1. Incised wound over abdomen in left
hypochondric region, 6x2 cm prob going in
abdomen.
2. Incised wound over chest, left side,
medial to nipple. 4X2 cm deep - Prob going
into chest easily. Bleeding from injury was
there. Object - Sharp perforating object.
Age within 6 hours. Nature - Dangerous
injury.
3. Fracture of left side 4th and 7th rib.
Haemothorax left side chest. There is
collection of blood. Heamopericardial.
Small size congested. There is anteriorly
Umesh Malani Page 16 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
perforating injury at the base of heart.
Heart was empty.
4. There was heampoeritonium. There was
semi digested food with water in stomach.
There was rupture of left lobe of liver.
Medialy.
Then this witness opined that death due to
shock due to rupture of heart with rupture of liver
with heampoeritonium with heampoericardium due to
perforating injuries. This witness stated that the
injuries, mentioned in the P.M. notes are possible by
weapons. Chest and abdomen injuries were stab injuries.
This witness also examined Madhukar (PW 6) who
is an eye witness. On examination of Madhukar, he found
the following injuries:
1) Incised wound over right side of ear,
2 cm deep, Incised wound over back side of
head, 4 x 1 cm. Bone deep.
2) Blunt trauma on back, paid and
tenderness was there.
Then Dr. Laxman Chavan (PW 8) sought opinion
of Dr. Telrandhe (PW 9). After obtaining opinion, he
found that there was fracture of spine scapula left
side. The injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp and
cutting object and injury no. 3 caused by hard and
Umesh Malani Page 17 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
cutting object. The age of injury was within 3 hours.
The nature of injury was grievous.
In the cross-examination, this witness
admitted that while issuing the medical certificates
the weapons were not before him. He further admitted
that if there was a stab injury by this weapon the
front portion will be a pointing one and it will go
back increasingly.
25. Dr. Mahesh Telrandhe (PW 9) is the medical
officer working with M.G. Hospital, Malegaon at the
relevant time. This witness deposed that on 23-10-2008
he had visited M.G. Hospital. On that day, he examined
Madhukar (PW 6), Dnyaneshwar Bhadane and Vasant
Bhadane. On examination of Madhuakr, he found following
injuries:
a) C.L.W. at right ear, 2 cm x cartilage
deep.
b) C.L.W. at post auricular region 3 cm
x half cm into bone deep.
c) Contusion to fronto-parietal region
with haemotoma right side, 8 cm x 6 cm x 1
cm.
d) Contusion at left side of shoulder.
e) Abrasion on abdomen 10x12 cm single
Umesh Malani Page 18 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
line.
f) Fracture spine of scapula left side.
This witness further stated that the age of
the injury were fresh, caused by hard and blunt object.
The nature of the injuries were grievous.
Considering the evidence of these two
witnesses, it can safely be said that the death of
deceased was not natural. There are many injuries on
the person of deceased, which can only be caused by
using weapon. Therefore, it is proved that the death of
deceased was homicidal one.
26. Now, we may refer to evidence of eye
witnesses, i.e., Jibhau (PW 1) and Madhukar (PW 6).
27. As we have already referred the necessary
details of the prosecution case reflected through the
version of Jibhau Bhadane (PW 1), it may not be
necessary for us to reiterate his version, suffice it
to say that Jibhau (PW 1) stated in detail about the
incident which took on 23.10.2008.
In the cross-examination of this witness
admitted that there was no previous enmity or quarrel
between his family and family of accused. Then this
Umesh Malani Page 19 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
witness admitted that as there was exchange of hot
words, people started running here and there. Then a
suggestion was given to this witness that he personally
did not see as to who assaulted deceased, this
suggestion was denied. Then this witness admitted that
when his son fell down Vasant, Madhukar and
Dnyandeshwar and others rushed there. Then a suggestion
was given to this witness that he is deposing false
that the accused persons beat deceased by fists and
kick blows, he denied this suggestion.
28. Now, we may refer the evidence of Madhukar
Bhadane (PW 6). This witness also reiterate the story
as stated by Jibhau (PW 1).
In the cross-examination this witness admitted
that there was dispute between both the families on
account of common border. This witness denied the
suggestion that the persons present in the Gramsabha
stood up and started running from there. Then certain
suggestions were given to this witness, he denied those
suggestions.
29. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel
appearing for the Appellants as well as learned APP and
Umesh Malani Page 20 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
the evidence brought before the Court, in our opinion,
the Trial Court committed no error in appreciating the
evidence. There is considerable merit in the
submissions of learned APP. Learned APP was justified
in submitting before this Court that the evidence of
the eye witnesses i.e., Jibhau (PW 1) and Madhukar (PW
6) is trustworthy, unshattered, clinching and inspiring
the confidence of the Court.
30. Though, it was submitted by the learned
Counsel for the Appellants that it is not the case of
pre-meditation or an intention being carried by the
Appellants and the case would not fall under Section
302 of IPC, we are unable to accept the submission of
learned Counsel for the Appellants.
31. The evidence on record clearly show that there
was a Gramsabha in the village and this meeting was
attended by villagers. When there was a general meeting
in the village, the Appellants were present with deadly
weapons. When scuffle broke out, the Appellants laid an
attack on complainant and deceased.
32. It is submitted that mere failure of Dr.
Umesh Malani Page 21 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
Laxman Chavan (PW 8) for not bringing the notes cannot
laid to discard the entire evidence of the medical
officer. Not bringing the notes may be at the most is
irregularity but cannot be termed as an illegality so
as to discard the medical evidence. The prosecution
established its case against the Appellants through the
unshattered and clinching evidence of the eye witnesses
i.e., Jibhau (PW 1) and Madhukar (PW 6) as such, merely
certain technical flaws in medical evidence cannot
washout the truthful and inspiring evidence of the eye
witnesses. Even though one of the panch witness turned
hostile, and one panch is not examined by the
prosecution, the recovery of weapon is duly proved
through investigating officer.
33. The postmortem report also shows that the
cause of death is shock due to rupture of heart with
rupture of liver with heampoeritonium with
heampoericardium due to perforating injuries. As such,
the evidence of Jibhau (PW 1) and Madhukar (PW 6)
coupled with medical evidence clearly establishes the
case of prosecution that deceased died homicidal death.
34. The evidence brought on record shows that
Umesh Malani Page 22 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
there were two groups in the village and it is stated
by Jibhau (PW 1) in his testimony before the Court that
one group was in opposition to the group of the
Appellants and on the death of a villager, there was a
demand for deferment of the Gramsabha. The deferment of
the Gramsabha was opposed by the group of Appellants
and they were insisting to conduct of Gramsabha on the
very day. Thus, it was the case of the prosecution that
accused persons were carrying a common intention and
when there was an opposition for holding a Gramsabha,
at that time, some enraged the group of Appellants and
Appellants raised dispute and the same resulted in
unrest, quarrel and chaotic situation.
35. The prosecution has also brought on record
that Appellants reached on the spot together and were
carrying deadly weapons and when there was an
opposition the accused resorted to an assault and
deceased and Jibhau (PW 1) were subjected to the said
assault. Therefore, it can be said that the Appellants
in furtherance of their common intention committed
crime.
36. Considering the sequence of events, it can be
Umesh Malani Page 23 of 24
Judgment.Cr.Apeal.509.2014+.doc
stated that the Appellants who were armed with deadly
weapons, by giving knife blows on the vital parts of
the body of the deceased, had knowledge of their act.
In the present matter, apart from medical evidence, the
prosecution has successfully brought the evidence in
the form of version of the eye witnesses namely, the
Jibhau (PW 1) the complainant and Madhukar (PW 6).
37. Considering the evidence brought on record, we
are unable to accept the submissions of learned Counsel
for the Appellants. Thus, in our opinion, Appeals are
devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,
Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
Umesh Malani Page 24 of 24
