2020 Supreme(Bom) 330
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
Rajendra S/o. Babaji Bhor - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 140, 141, 183, 189, 197 of 2017 with Criminal Application No. 621, 301, 302 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.R. Gundecha
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajendra D. Sanap, APP Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate assist to APP.
The prosecution has proved the offences for which the conviction is given by the Trial Court as against accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. It is not possible to interfere in that part of the decision. However, accused No. 11 who is convicted for the offence punishable under Arms Act is entitled to acquittal.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT : T.V. NALAWADE, J. 1. All the appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 44/2011 which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The appellants are convicted for different offences by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard.
Fact of the Case:
Criminal Appeal Nos. 140/2017, 183/2017, 189/2017 and 197/2017 are fled by accused Nos. 8, 2, 5 and 6 and 1, respectively from the aforesaid Sessions Case. They are convicted for offences punishable under sections 302 r/w. 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for short) and some other offences. All of them are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine. Criminal Appeal No. 141/2017 is fled by original accused No. 11 from the same case, but he is convicted and sentenced only for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w. 25 of Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The aforesaid circumstances are more than sufficient to prove that accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 had hatched the conspiracy of murder of deceased prior to 13th and as per the conspiracy the murder was committed by accused Nos. 5 and 6 for consideration of money.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved the offences for which the conviction is given by the Trial Court as against accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8? 2. Whether accused No. 11 who is convicted for the offence punishable under Arms Act is entitled to acquittal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the prosecution has proved the offences for which the conviction is given by the Trial Court as against accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8. 2. Yes, accused No. 11 who is convicted for the offence punishable under Arms Act is entitled to acquittal.
Final Decision: In the result, following order. (I) Appeals of accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6 and 8 bearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 197, 183, 189, 140 of 2017, respectively, stand dismissed. (II) Criminal Appeal No. 141/2017 of accused No. 11 – Govindsingh Shridhat Kesram Yadav is allowed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court delivered in Sessions Case No. 44/2011, sentencing this accused for the offence under section 5 punishable under section 25 of Arms Act is hereby quashed and set aside. He stands acquitted of that offence. His bail bonds are cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by him is to be returned to him. The bond of Rs.15,000/- as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. be obtained from him. (III) Other criminal applications, if any, stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
1. All the appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 44/2011 which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The appellants are convicted for different offences by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard.
2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals can be stated as follows :-
Criminal Appeal Nos. 140/2017, 183/2017, 189/2017 and 197/2017 are fled by accused Nos. 8, 2, 5 and 6 and 1, respectively from the aforesaid Sessions Case. They are convicted for offences punishable under sections 302 r/w. 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for short) and some other offences. All of them are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine. Criminal Appeal No. 141/2017 is fled by original accused No. 11 from the same case, but he is convicted and sentenced only for the offence punishable under section 5 r/w. 25 of Arms Act.
3. Accused No. 1 is the father of accused No. 2 and both of them hail from village Narayangavhan, Tahsil Parner, District Ahmednagar. Accused No. 8 was resident of Pune at the relevant time, but he used to visit village Narayangavhan as he had married with a lady from this village. Due to his frequent visits to this village, he had become acquainted with accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were in politics. Accused No. 8 was working in military at the relevant time and he was living in Pune as he was posted there. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had political rivalry with the deceased Prakesh Kandekar. In the past, accused No. 1 was Sarpanch of village Narayangavhan and for many years this Village Panchayat was under his control. One cooperative society of Narayangavhan was also under control of accused No. 1 for quite some time. Deceased Prakesh had created his own group and this group had come in power both in Village Panchayat and in cooperative society. In the past, one criminal case was fled against associates of deceased Prakash on the allegation that they had attempted to commit murder of nephew of accused No. 1, but few months prior to the date of incident in question, they were acquitted. The deceased used to give complaints against milk diary which was run by accused No. 1 and due to that also, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were feeling harassed. Due to all these reasons accused Nos. 1 and 2 took the decision to finish the deceased.
4. Accused No. 8 had contacts in Pune and other places and due to his contacts the work was given to him by accused Nos. 1 and 2 to hire killers to finish the deceased. Brother of accused No. 8, accused No. 7 joined hands with accused No. 8 in this work. They were also expected to procure fire arm which was to be used by hired killers. Thus, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 8 first hatched conspiracy to use hired killers and finish the deceased by using fire arms. One fire arm was procured from accused no. 11, who is resident of Utter Pradesh. The fire arm was then handed over to accused Nos. 5 and 6 who were hired to kill Prakash Kandekar and they became part of the conspiracy to make money.
5. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 withdrew huge amount from their accounts like amount of Rs. three lakh each for giving this amount to hired killers and prior to the date of incident, this amount was paid to accused Nos. 5 and 6. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 visited village Narayangavhan and after meeting accused No. 1and 8, they made the preparation like choosing the spot etc. and accused Nos. 5 and 6 did the reiki. They collected information regarding routine of the deceased and his habits. The incident in question took place on 13.11.2010 at about 4.30 p.m. On that day, the deceased and his friend Kisan Shelke (PW 14) went to Shirur on scooter of Ravindra, a friend of deceased who is resident of Narayangavhan. Both the deceased and PW 14 had some work in Shirur. Some witnesses saw accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the company of accused No. 1 in Shirur on 13.11.2010. It was weekly Bazar day of Shirur.
6. The decease