SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Bom) 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Batta R.K. Kanade V.M., JJ.
Kashirao Kisan Lahale others .... Appellants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1997, decided on 23-7-2002.
Advocates appeared :
M.R. Rajendra Daga J.B. Kasat, for appellants.
Mirza, A.P.P., for respondent-State.

Headnote:[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 149 and 302 - Evidence Act, Sections 3 and 27 - Recovery evidence in murder case. - Only recovery of weapons of offence at instance of accused, cannot be a ground to hold accused committed murder of deceased with common intention.

       [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 149 and 302 - Conviction - Murder - Common object and intention - No direct or circumstantial evidence - Absence of crucial evidence - Accused cannot be held guilty of sharing common object and intention. - It has not been established by the prosecution by either direct or circumstantial evidence that apart from accused No. 1 the other accused were either seen by any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution assaulting the deceased and, therefore, in the absence of this crucial evidence, it will be difficult to hold the other accused guilty of the offence under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code of sharing the common object and intention.

JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:---The appellants herein were charged under sections 302 read with sections 147, 148, 149, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and were also charged independently under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted the accused/appellant No. 1 herein and accused Nos. 3 to 7 guilty for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 452 read with sections 149, 307 read with section 149 and also under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and so far as the offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they were convicted for three years for having committed an offence under sections 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The original accused No. 2 Mohan s/o Kashinath Lahale had died during the pendency of the trial and, therefore, the trial against him has abated in view of his death. Appellant No. 1 is the original accused No. 1 and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are the original accused Nos. 3 to 7. (For the sake of convenience they will be referred to original accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 3 to 7). The appellants have challenged the said judgment and orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 1988, dated 25th July, 1997.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :

It is the case of the prosecution that the relations between accused No. 1 Kashirao s/o Kisan Lahale and P.W. 1 Pundlik Tulshiram Taksale were strained for a long time and P.W. 1 Pundlik Tulshiram Taksale who initially used to stay in village Dhamori, had shifted his residence to another village namely village Saturna along with his wife and children since about one year before the date of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-12-1987 at about 6.30 p.m. accused No. 1 along with accused Nos. 3 to 7 and deceased accused No. 2 formed an unlawful assembly to cause the death of P.W. 1 Pundlik Tulshiram Taksale and his friends. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 was armed with a sword, accused No. 2 was armed with an axe, other accused were armed with lathis and the prosecution case in brief is that these accused entered the house of P.W. 1 Pundlik Tulshiram Taksale and when one of the friend of P.W. 1 Pundlik Tulshiram Taksale escaped from the rear door, these accused chased the said Subhash Varankar and assaulted him with sword, axe and sticks and committed his murder and, thereafter, came back to the house of P.W. 1 Pundlik Tulshiram Taksale, pelted stones on his house and after P.W. 1 Pundlik ran away from his house to save his life, these accused chased him and gave blows on the person of P.W. 1 Pundlik, amputated his left arm and also caused injuries to his right arm and also assaulted him with sticks and sword and, thereafter, chased another friends of P.W. 1 Pundlik. However, the said friend Jaiwant was successful in catching an S.T. Bus and fled away from the scene of the offence.

3. The background of the case, according to the prosecution, is that the accused No. 2 who died during the pendency of the trial, was the son of accused No. 1, accused Nos. 4 and 5 are real brothers, accused No. 7 is the son of accused No. 6 and all of them are residents of village Dhamori. It is the case of the prosecution that initially P.W. 1 Pundlik was also residing in village Dhamori. However, on account of the enemity between the two groups, P.W. 1 Pundlik had abandoned the said village and has started residing in village Saturna. A criminal case under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against P.W. 1 Pundlik for having assaulted the present accused No. 1.

4. Under these circumstances, on the date of the incident i.e. on 27-12-1987, when P.W. 2 Gangadhar Patil, P.W. 5, Jaiwanta, P.W. 6, Charandas and deceased Subhash Varankar were going to village Dhamori in an Auto Rickshaw. P.W. 1 Pun






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top