In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
NARESH H. PATIL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
Shriram @ Shirya & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others
Criminal Appeal Nos. 208 of 2010, 192 of 2010 & 170 of 2012, 235 of 2012
Decided On : 04-07-2013
These witnesses have recorded memorandum and shown discovery of blood stained clothes of accused Shriram himself and discovery of knife from shrubs of a tree behind Bhagwanbaba Pratishthan Temple. However, the knife has not been linked to the accused. In the evidence of PW 2, the instrument was not put up to him. In fact, even the instrument which was put up to PW 2 ’R’ as Kukri, appears to have been the razor without handle. PW 2 ’R’ deposed that, Article 12 shown to him was the same Kukri. Record shows that, Article 12 was really the razor which is said to have been seized from the spot. Kukri was Article 17, PW 2, in the further evidence again referred to the same Article 12 as the razor which had been seized from the spot. PW 5 ’S ’, no doubt, identified the knife Article 21, but he did not depose that it was the same instrument which was used in the incident. Even otherwise, he claims to have seen the incident from about 50 ft. distance and cannot be said to have been in a position to identify the instrument.
Investigating Officer Angad Sudke, who sent seized articles to Chemical Anslyser on 3.1.2009, has deposed that, when he took the articles from possession of Muddemal Clerk of Police Station, at that time they were not having seal or labels pasted. The investigation must be said to be faulty.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Court does not agree with the line of reasoning adopted by the trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court cannot be maintained.
A.I.S. Cheema, J.
1. Criminal Appeal Nos.208/2010, 170/2010 and 192/2010 have been filed by accused who were tried before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.22/2009 and were convicted on 21.4.2010. Two of the accused persons involved (here respondents in Criminal Appeal No.235/2012) in the same incident were absconding and after they were apprehended, they were tried vide Sessions Case No.76/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed and were acquitted. Thus, the State filed Criminal Appeal No.235/2012. Appellant/ accused Shriram, who had jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 208/2010, was granted leave to file separate appeal and thus, he filed Criminal Appeal No.170/2012. By this common judgment, we are disposing of all these appeals.
2. Unless mentioned otherwise, we will refer to witnesses and documents from Sessions Case No.22/2009.
3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under: Deceased Sandipan Namdeo Jadhav was residing with his brothers Ram and Keshav and his mother Laxmibai, at Subhash Colony, Peth, Beed. He was District President of Rashtrawadi Congress Seva Dal. His mother Laxmibai had been elected as member of Municipal Council, Beed. Asaram Gaikwad (accused No.6) was worker of Rashtrawadi Congress Party and he was Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Bahirwadi. There was dispute between the family of Sandipan Jadhav and accused No.6 Asaram Gaikwad due to political rivalry. Earlier there had been an incident of assault on 20.2.2008, in which accused Asaram Gaikwad and his relatives had assaulted Ram Jadhav, the brother of now deceased Sandipan. Present incident took place on 16.10.2008 at about 7.30 p.m. when accused No.1 Shriram @ Shirya s/o Sitaram Gunjal, accused No.2 Maroti Jagannath Gaikwad, accused No.3 Santosh Arun Gaikwad, accused No.4 Prakash Pandurang Jadhav, accused No.5 Ritesh Santram Bahir, accused No.6 Asaram Jagannath Gaikwad and accused No.7 Shailesh @ Santosh Jalindhar Jogdand formed unlawful assembly near Tuljabhavani Square, at Punam Lane, Beed, opposite the house of one Dr. Raut. They reached the spot in Indica Car bearing No.MH-21/C-1561 carrying instruments like knife and Kukri and various injuries were inflicted on the person of Sandipan. When people gathered, the accused ran away in the Car. The incident was witnessed by Ram Jadhav, the brother of deceased. One Dipak Gore, Vishnu Gaikwad and one Santosh Jadhav were also there. As per the case of prosecution, Ram Jadhav, with the help of Dipak Gore and Vishnu Gaikwad, took his injured brother Sandipan to Civil Hospital. However, by 8.15 p.m., Sandipan expired. Coming to known of the incident, police reached the spot and then to the Hospital also. At the hospital, inquest panchanama was carried out and then Ram Jadhav filed F.I.R., which was registered at Crime No.169/2008 at Police Station, Peth, Beed under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief), Section 27/4 of Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In the same night, post mortem was got done and clothes of the deceased were seized. The abandoned car was also seized. In the morning, spot panchanama came to be recorded. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were arrested on 18.10.2008. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 25.10.2008 and accused No.5 came to be arrested on 4.11.2008. From accused No.1, his blood stained clothes and knife used in the incident were discovered on 27.10.2008. On the same day, accused No.2 Maroti gave discovery of clothes worn by him at the time of incident. Other necessary investigation was conducted by police, like seizure of clothes of witness Dipak Gore and recording of statements. Test identification parade was held on 6.1.2009 and charge sheet was filed showing accused Nos.6 and 7 as absconding. The trial came up before Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed and prosecution brought on record the oral and documentary evidence it wanted. After the trial was conducted, accused Nos.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.