The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to prove the involvement of the accused in the formation of an unlawful assembly and the commission of the alleged offence.

(PER : C.V. BHADANG, J.)

1. The is an appeal by the State against acquittal of respondents/original accused. The respondents were put on trial in Sessions Case No.160/1997 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. Respondent nos.1 to 5 were charged under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code for having formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of committing the murder of Pundlik Ringole, Pandurang Ringole and Vitthal Bhoyar. In addition, respondent no.3/original accused no.3 Kamlakar (since deceased) was also charged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Pundlik and under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code for attempting the murder of Pandurang and Vitthal. Respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were also charged under Sections 302, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that respondent no.3 Kamlakar committed the act in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.

2. According to the prosecution, one Kanta, the niece of the complainant Pandurang and Pundlik and sister of Vitthal had love affair with original accused no.2 Sanjay. This was not approved by the family members of Kanta and on account of that the relations between the two families were strained. This is said to be the motive behind the commission of the offence.

3. The incident in question occurred on 29.8.1997 at about 9:00 p.m. when complainant Pandurang was at his house. It is said that respondent/original accused Kamlakar (since deceased) was passing by the road in front of his house when a pet dog of the complainant barked at him, which led Pandurang, hitting the dog and abusing and threatening the complainant. The complainant came out of the house, there was some hot exchange of words. Thereafter, Kamlakar abused the complainant. The incident in question is said to have occurred at 'Pandhan' adjoining to the house of the complainant, where all the accused assembled. The respondent Deorao was having a stick, Prakash was having a knife and Deorao started assaulting Pandurang, Pundlik and Vitthal by stick. The respondent Prakash handed over a knife to Kamlakar and instigated him to assault. In consequence Kamlakar with the said knife assaulted Pandurang, Pundlik and Vitthal on their chest and abdomen etc. It is said that while Kamlakar was inflicting blows, respondents/accused Prakash, Sanjay and Gopal had caught hold of them. After that respondents went away. Pandurang thereafter lodged a report, on the basis of which an offence came to be registered. The injured were sent for medical examination. Initially, offence at Crime No.128/1997 was registered with Police Station, Wani under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the clothes of the injured persons were seized, spot panchanamas were drawn, certain seizures were made from the spot and the respondents came to be arrested. It is said that there were some injuries on the person of the respondents/accused as well. They were also sent for medical examination, blood samples of the respondents and the injured were collected. According to the prosecution, respondents Deorao and Kamlakar, while in custody, gave a confessional statement, which led to discovery of one knife and stick. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The seized weapons were sent for opinion of the medical officer and the opinion was obtained. The seized articles were also sent for the report of the Chemical Analyzer. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani, which was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the respondents. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondents was of total denial and false implication. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses and produced the record of the investigation. The respon