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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Radhakrishnan S. Mohite R.S., JJ.
State of Maharashtra another .... Appellants.
Versus
Devappa Sidappa Kambale @ Muniv others.... Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1987 with Criminal Revision Application No. 168 of 1987, decided on 16-3-2004.
Advocates appeared :
I.S. Thakur, A.P.P., for appellant/State.
S.V. Marwadi with Shailesh Kantharia, for respondent Nos. 2, 3 5 to 9.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 149 and 302 - Ac quittal in murder case. - Since none of accused except accused No. 2 caused injury to deceased and acts alleged against them by witnesses resulted in simple injuries hence there was no common intention of all members of unlawful assembly to eliminate deceased

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Acquittal in murder case. - Where evidence of eye- witnesses regarding assault on deceased by accused not inspiring confidence as omission in their evidence as carrying of torches by accused not mentioned in FIR therefore, acquittal of accused warrants no interference.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Acquittal in murder case. - Where evidence of three injured eye-witnesses regarding assault on deceased by accused, is cogent, con- sistent inter se and totally corroborated by medical evidence and remained unshaken in cross-examination therefore acquittal of accused set aside.

JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1987 is filed by the State, seeking to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 22-1-1987 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1986. The Criminal Revision Application No. 168 of 1987 has been preferred by the original complainant Yashwant Sidgonda Patil against the same judgment and order. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as appear from record are as under :-

(a) That the accused are residents of Gadhinglaj. The family of the complainants also are from the same town. Accused No. 1 Devappa is the father of the accused No. 2 Maruti and accused No. 3 Ramesh. Accused No. 4 Bhairu and accused No. 5 Datta are sons of the sister of accused No. 1 Devappa. Accused Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are close relatives of accused No. 1 Devappa.

(b) About 17 to 18 years prior to the incident, father of P.W. 2 Yashwant had purchased a field from accused No. 1 Devappa. The said field bore No. 783/2 and was known as "Aarbigi". A dispute arose regarding the said transaction. Accused No. 1 Devappa filed a Suit for declaration that the sale deed in respect of the said was illegal. That suit was filed against P.W. 2 Yashwant. The said civil proceeding was pending between the accused No. 1 and Yashwant. The family of the complainant also filed chapter cases against some of the accused. They had also perused their own civil litigation and an injunction suit filed by the family of the complainants was decided in their favour. To summarise, there was bad blood and enmity between the family of the accused and the complainant.

(c) On 17-9-1985, P.W. 2 Yashwant, deceased Suresh, their mother Sonabai, the sisters of P.W. 1 and 40 to 50 other women went to the disputed filed "Aarbigi" and were doing the work of digging groundnuts. This work was done from 9 a.m. till the evening on that day, The 40 to 50 women were given their shares in the nature of groundnuts and thereafter, the family of the complainants returned to their home. After they took their meals at about 9 p.m., the sister of P.W. 1, by name Dundavva said that the family members should go to the field and bring back the gunny bag full of groundnuts which had been inadvertently left behind in the field. They took a torch and a towel with them and returned to the field. They were searching for the said gunny bag in the field, but they could not immediately find it. At that time, they saw that the accused No. 1 Devappa, accused No. 2 Maruti and accused No. 3 Ramesh Kamble were present in the field. There were 7 to 8 other persons, including the other accused. The persons present there rushed towards the family of the complainant and started assaulting them. The accused persons were armed with weapons. Accused No. 2 Maruti assaulted the deceased Suresh with a knife on his stomach and head. Accused No. 3 assaulted P.W. 2 Yashwant on his shoulder and head with a knife. Accused No. 1 Devappa assaulted Yashwant by a knife. Accused No. 3 assaulted Dundavva on her left waist with an axe. Accused No. 2 Maruti assaulted P.W. 4 Kallavva on her head with an axe. Accused No. 4 assaulted P.W. 4 Kallavva on her left arm with a scythe. According to the prosecution, the entire incident was witnessed by P.W. 2 Yashwant, P.W. 3 Rukmini, P.W. 4 Kallavva and P.W. 5 Sonabai. Of these, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are injured eye-witnesses. P.W. 5 Sonabai was the mother, who had witnessed the entire incident from a little distance. The deceased Suresh died instantaneously at the spot, he was stabbed.

(d) The entire incident took place at about 9.30 in the night. P.W. 2 immediately went to the Police Station and lodged a report. F.I.R. was written as per his say and the same is at Exhibit 27. P.W. 2 Yashwant was sent to the Z.P. dispensary at Gadhinglaj. Later on he pointed out the scene of the offence to the Police. The Police co




























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top