Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
Padmakar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999 & 79 of 2000
Decided on : 14-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants: Mr. Joydeep Chatterji a/w Mr. V.D. Gunale, Mr. B.L. Dhas
For the Respondent/State: Mr. B.L. Dhas, Mr. P.N. Kuttyassist to P.P., Mr. Jooydeep Chatterji & Mr. V.D. Gunale, Mr. P.N. Kutty Assist to P.P.
Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
Headnote:
In a case involving an unlawful assembly with a very large number of persons, there is no rule of law that states that there cannot be any conviction on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, unless that the court is of the view that the testimony of such sole eyewitness is not reliable. Though, generally it is a rule of prudence followed by the courts that a conviction may not be sustained if it is not supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in a fit case the court may believe a reliable sole eyewitness if in his testimony he makes specific reference to the identity of the individual and his specific overt acts in the incident. The rule of requirement of more than one witness applies only in a case where a witness deposes in a general and vague manner, or in the case of a riot.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Ranba was killed by a group of accused persons who formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to him. The accused persons assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons like sword, axe, stick, and iron rod, resulting in his death. Two injured witnesses, PW1 and PW4, who were relatives of the deceased, testified against the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him. The court found that the accused persons had knowledge of the fact that they had assembled with the unlawful object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him. The court also found that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, assembled together with weapons and killed the deceased and assaulted the injured witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him? 2. Whether the accused persons had knowledge of the fact that they had assembled with the unlawful object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him? 3. Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, assembled together with weapons and killed the deceased and assaulted the injured witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him. The court found that the accused persons had knowledge of the fact that they had assembled with the unlawful object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him. The court also found that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, assembled together with weapons and killed the deceased and assaulted the injured witnesses. 2. The court relied on the provisions of sections 141, 142, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to hold that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him. The court also relied on the evidence of the injured witnesses, PW1 and PW4, to find that the accused persons had knowledge of the fact that they had assembled with the unlawful object of causing grievous hurt to the deceased and ultimately killing him. 3. The court relied on the evidence of the injured witnesses, PW1 and PW4, to find that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common object, assembled together with weapons and killed the deceased and assaulted the injured witnesses.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the respondents and allowed the appeal filed by the appellants/accused against their conviction and sentence. The court acquitted the accused No.4 Suryakant s/o Yashwant Dadge and accused No.8 Narsing s/o Baburao Dadge of the charges leveled against them. The court dismissed the appeal as regards appellants/accused No.10 Babu Limbaji Dadge, accused No.9 Bapurao Amrata Dadge, accused No.3 Deelip Trimbak Shivange, accused No.7 Babruwahan Yeshwant Dadge, and accused No.1 Padmakar Baburao Dadge.
S.S. Shinde, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 1999 is filed by the original accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10, who are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149, 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2000 is filed by the State of Maharashtra, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, acquitting the original accused nos. 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 324 r/w 149 of I.P. Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as under :-
(i) One Muktabai W/o Shankar Gawali is resident of Yelamwadi, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. She is living along with five sons namely Ashok, Balaji, Sanjay, Vyankat and Baba and three daughters namely Prabhawati, Ushatai and Vijatai. Her daughter Prabhawati was married with Ranba (Ranba). Said Ranba is having land at village Yelamwadi, and the field of accused Trimbak Shivange (accused no.11) is adjoining to his land. One and half month back of the incident, Trimbak Shivange had quarrel with Ranba Dadge over half acre of land. Since then the accused Trimbak Shivange and his sons are on inimical terms with complainant's family.
(ii) On 20.08.1998, Thursday, at about 8.00 a.m. her soninlaw deceased Ranba Dattu Dadge had come with milkcan to her house, and he was intending to go outside. Shankar Eknath Gawali, who is husband of Muktabai and soninlaw deceased Ranba, went to the house of Manohar Patil for meal at about 8.30 a.m., on occasion of death anniversary of father of Manohar Patil. They took the meal and again came to complainant's house. Muktabai did prepare tea for them. After drinking tea, her husband and deceased Ranba, proceeded towards Nalegaon, on foot. They travelled distance at about 50 to 60 spaces. Suddenly, Muktabai heard commotion, and she started going towards said direction. So in the meanwhile her husband met her, who had received injury on his head. The complainant went ahead and came to the spot and saw that, the accused persons beating the deceased by axe, sword, Kathi, sticks, etc. Accused Babruwan had a sword, Suresh had a stick, Sudhakar had an iron bar, Padmakar had Kathi, Kamalakar had a stick, Bapurao had an iron bar, Narsing had a Kathi and Yeshwant had a stick, and they were beating to deceased Ranba in pit, which is near to the house of Bapurao Amrata Dadge. She told the accused not to beat, but accused Baburao Dadge came near her and gave blow of axe on her head. Then Bapurao Dadge beat her by iron bar on her shoulder, thereby she received bleeding injuries. Moreover, the accused persons assaulted deceased, who died on the spot. The complainant in injured condition went to lodge the complaint at Nalegaon, Tq. Chakur. The Police sent her to the Govt. Hospital, Nalegaon, wherein she was given medical treatment. As per the version of the complainant, while beating complainant, the accused abused her by uttering the words that “Do you come there to lift the deadbody of Ranba and hurry up, lift his deadbody”. (vkrk dk; jkuckp e<a mpyk; vkyh dk \ mpy R;kp e<) Husband Shankar Gawali was also admitted in the hospital. Then her complaint (at Exh. 52) was recorded by the Police and both of them were sent to Latur hospital for further medical treatment.
(iii) After this incident, the Police Sub-Inspector received the information on phone, so he came there and saw the deadbody. He called panchas and drew the inquest panchanama Exh. 55 on the very same day at about 2.00 p.m. Then the dead body was removed and the spotpanchanama Exh. 56 was drawn on the spot. Earth mixed with blood, simple earth, Jerman can, shoes, clothes were attached under spot panchanama Exh. 56. PW3 Digamber Biradar acted as panch witness.
(iv) Thereafter, Prabhakar Latange saw the spot, so also the field of deceased Ran
