Bombay High Court
Nagesh S/O. Baliram Lagad And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:3030-DB
1 appln-01-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2020
1. Nagesh s/o Baliram Lagad,
Age; 18 years, Occu: Education,
R/o Karmavir Boys Hostel, in front of
S.T. Office, Renapur Naka, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur.
2. Komal Baliram Lagad,
Age: 16 years, Occu: Education,
Minor U/g of her father
Bairam s/o Narayan Lagad,
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o Talegaon (Bk), Tq. Dharur,
Dist. Beed ...Applicants
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Dindrud, Dist. Beed
2. Rajkanya Mahadeo Lagad
Age : 45 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Telgaon (BK), Tq. Dharur,
Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for the Applicants : Mr. S. J. Salunke
A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. S. Sakhare h/f. Mr. S. A.
Ambad
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
2 appln-01-2020.odt
DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2025, 2024.
JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :
1. The applicants in the present proceeding are arrayed as accused
Nos.3 and 4 in FIR No.89/2019 registered with Dindrud Police Station,
District Beed on 10.05.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections
328, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Respondent No.2 is the informant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are
father and mother respectively of the present applicants. However, the
FIR is challenged by accused Nos.3 and 4 only. The father of present
applicants, i.e., Baliram Lagad and husband of respondent No.2 are real
brothers. As per the contents of the FIR on 30.04.2019 at about 9 p.m.
respondent No.2 had been to the house of accused No.1-Baliram Lagad
to discuss a matter in relation to a plot which is stated to have been
acquired by the said Baliram Lagad and Mahadeo Lagad, i.e., husband
of respondent No.2, jointly. Respondent No.2 alleges that since Baliram
Lagad had got his name alone recorded against the said plot without
her consent she had gone to his house to make inquiries in that regard.
Respondent No.2 states that at that time, the present applicants and
their mother, Meerabai Lagad came outside the house and started
quarrel with her. She alleges that the present applicants and their
3 appln-01-2020.odt
mother started beating her by inflicting fist blows and kicks. She then
alleges that Meerabai Lagad went inside the house and brought some
bottle and the liquid in the said bottle was forcibly administered to her
by Meerabai. She alleges that applicant No.1 was saying that
respondent No.2 is all alone and they should kill her there and then.
She had further stated that after she fells unconscious, one Ankush
Dhumal, Baburao Dhumal and the accused No.1-Baliram took her to a
private hospital from where she was shifted to Government Hospital,
Ambajogai. She claims that she was taking treatment at Ambajogai
from 01.05.2019 to 07.05.2019 and thereafter she has lodged the FIR
on 09.05.2019 which came to be registered on the subsequent day, i.e.,
10.05.2019. The present applicants have challenged the FIR in the
present proceedings. It will be pertinent to mention here that at the
relevant time both the applicants were minors.
3. Mr. S. J. Salunke, the learned Counsel appearing for the
applicants has argued that even if the contents of the FIR are accepted
to be true and correct on their face value it can be seen that offence
under Section 328 cannot be attributed to the present applicants. In as
much as admittedly they did not administer any substance to
respondent No.2 in order to attract Section 328. With respect to other
consequences, he submits that they are non cognizable and therefore
4 appln-01-2020.odt
the FIR cannot be registered. He has pointed out that according to the
FIR, Baliram, i.e, the father of the applicants who is arrayed as accused
No.1 had taken respondent No.2 to hospital for treatment. This,
according him, falsifies the allegations levelled in the FIR. He also
points out to a document filed with the petition as Exhibit-E to contend
that property was mutated in his name as well as in the name of
respondent No.2. He states that other property in the village which was
ancestral property was mutated in names of five legal representatives.
By drawing attention to the documents he submits that the entire
foundation to the case, i.e., dispute in relation to the property is based
on falsehood. He further submits that leading the FIR as it is an offence
under Section 328 can at best be attributed only to accused No.2 and
not to the present applicants who are accused Nos.3 and 4. He further
submits that the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory ("RFSL") Report
dated 07.08.2019 reveals that there was no insecticide sample collected
from respondent No.2. As regards the report relating to bottle which
confirms existence of pesticides he submits that the incident had
allegedly occurred on 30.04.2019, the bottle was obviously seized after
FIR was lodged. The FIR was lodged on 10.05.2019 and as such it is
unconceivable that the bottle which was forwarded to RFSL was the
one which was used while the alleged offence was committed on
30.04.2019.
5 appln-01-2020.odt
4. He lastly submits that even if the contents of the FIR are
accepted to be true including the allegation that the said pesticide was
administered to respondent No.2, offence under Section 328 will not be
made out against the applicants, since, admittedly they did not
administer the pesticide. He states that the other offences are non
cognizable and therefore the FIR should be quashed.
5. Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
submits that the common intention of all the accused can be inferred,
since, as per the FIR, accused Nos.2 to 4 were jointly beating
respondent No.2. He submits that at that moment accused No.2 went
inside the house and brought that bottle containing pesticides and
forcibly administered the pesticides to respondent No.2. He then
submits that as per the FIR, applicant No.1 was saying that since
respondent No.2 does not have anybody to support her they should
take advantage of the situation to kill her. This, according to the
learned A.P.P., gives rise to inference of common intention. Shri. V. A.
Sakhare, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 supports the contentions
advanced by the learned A.P.P. and further elaborate the submissions.
6. Having heard the respective Counsel appearing in the matter, we
6 appln-01-2020.odt
find that the act of administering insecticides is attributed to accused
No.2 alone. It also appears from reading of the FIR that the quarrel had
ensued between respondent No.2 on one side and the present
applicants and their mother, Meerabai on the other. The allegation in
the FIR is that Meerabai went inside the house and brought a bottle
containing medicine and administered the same forcibly to respondent
No.2. It is not alleged that the present applicants aided or assisted the
act of administering pesticides. It will also be pertinent to mention that
while the quarrel had started the applicants could not have imagined or
visualized that their mother would bring the bottle containing
pesticides and administer it to respondent No.2.
7. Having regard to the contents of the FIR common intention can
be attributed to the applicants only for the act of beating which is a non
cognizable offence under Section 323. Respondent No.2 was taken to
S.R.T.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai for
treatment. The injury certificate dated 01.05.2019 records a entry in
column of nature of injury as poisoning. A sample was drawn from the
patient/respondent No.2 and sent to Regional Forensic Science
Laboratory (RFSL). The RFSL report dated 07.08.2019 does not reveal
existence of any poison in the said sample. It will also be pertinent to
mention that the prosecution has allegedly seized a bottle containing
7 appln-01-2020.odt
pesticide from the house of the applicants on 28.05.2019 i.e. 28 days
after the date of incident. RFSL report dated 07.08.2019 with respect to
contents of the said bottle show existence of insecticide in the bottle. It
should however be noticed that result of sample drawn from body of
respondent No.2 does not show existence of poison/pesticides.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the pesticide which was seized from
the house of the applicants was administered to respondent no.2.
8. The material on record and more pertinently the FIR itself does
not indicate that the present applicants have administered the
insecticides. Likewise, it does not appear from the material on record
that they had assisted accused No.2 in any manner whatsoever while
she was allegedly administering pesticide to respondent No.2. We have
already observed that accused No.2 had brought the bottle in the midst
of the fight and therefore common intention for administering poison
also cannot be attributed to the present applicants. There is absolutely
no material to infer that the present applicants are responsible for the
alleged offence under Section 328 of IPC or that they shared any
common intention for the offence under the said provision with
accused No.2. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be
served in prosecuting the applicants for the offence punishable under
Section 328 of IPC. The other provisions mentioned in the FIR are non
8 appln-01-2020.odt
cognizable, we are therefore of the opinion that the FIR against
applicants needs to be quashed. In the result, we pass the following
order :-
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) FIR No.89/2019 registered with Police Station, Dindrud,
District Beed for the offence punishable under Section 328,
323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Regular
Criminal Case No.111/2020 pending before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class at Dharur are quashed against the
applicants, namely, (1) Nagesh s/o Baliram Lagad and (2)
Komal Baliram Lagad.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE JUDGE
A.G.Narwade
