Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Asid Amir Jahagirdar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2016
Decided On : 24-11-2020
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 306, 452, 294, 323, 504, 506 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the legal provisions of Sections 143, 147, 306, 452, 294, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and their interpretations, highlighting the requirement of active instigation or abetment for conviction under Section 306 and the need for specific evidence to prove the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the accused for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, arising from a series of incidents including assault, threats, and suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was doubtful and untrustworthy, and the conviction of the accused was erroneous and illegal. The court observed that there was no active role played by the accused that could be connected to the instigation required for abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the requirement of active instigation for abetment under Section 306, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence to prove the charges and the absence of an active role by the accused in the alleged offenses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused were set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all the offenses.
JUDGMENT
Vibha Kankanwadi, J. - Present appeal has been filed by original accused persons, challenging their conviction in Sessions Case No.190/2011 by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad dated 25.1.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 306, 452, 294, 323, 504, 506, read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the appellants are referred to by their nomenclature before trial Court for the sake of convenience.
2. A brief conspectus of the facts relevant to unfold the controversy is as under :
a) First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged by one Munifa Shaikh on 18.1.2011 with Paithan MIDC Police Station, wherein she contended that she resides with her husband and children at Balanagar, Tq. Paithan. Original Accused No.1 resides in the same vicinity and is distantly related to her. She contended that when she had gone to the forest area to pick up fire-wood around 2.00 pm on 13.1.2011 and returned at about 4.00 pm, she found original accused No.3 assaulting nephew of the informant, who is aged 13-14 years, by stick. Said nephew's parents had gone for work, and therefore, the informant asked accused No.3 as to what has happened. At that time, she told that nephew of the informant has committed rape on daughter of accused No.3, who is aged two and half to three years. Accused No.3 started picking up quarrel with the informant. According to the informant, some other ladies were also present. In the evening, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the informant, i.e. parents of said nephew came. Accused No.3 had picked up quarrel with them also. Accused No.4 was present along with accused No.3 and she had also abused. Thereafter, there was no quarrel on 14.1.2011. However, at about 9.00 am on 15.1.2011, when husband of the informant went for work, so also her brother-in-law and sister-in-law went outside, the informant was at home; all the accused went inside the house of the informant and started assaulting her with fists and kick blows. They were asking her as to why she has intervened in the assault given by accused No.3 to her nephew. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were standing outside the house and they were instigating the ladies that they should drag the informant out of the house. Accused Nos.6 and 9 were in the first room of the informant's house and were instigating the lady members to assault the informant. Accused No.9, who is serving in police department, was uttering that he would rape the informant. The ornaments on person of the informant as well as from person of her daughter as well as cash amount was thrown. Accused Nos.6 and 9 were also saying that kerosene should be brought and her house should be put to fire. Accused No.1 gave a phone call to mobile of informant's brother-in-law, viz. Tayyab, and he was calling him to return back to home. He was abusing. House of brother-in-law of the informant was closed and latched by the accused persons. When people started gathering, accused persons went home. The informant further states that at about 5.00 pm, one Akil Ahmed from her village, went to house of the informant and informed that Tayyab had consumed poison and was lying on the ground. The informant went there and thereafter arrangements were made to shift Tayyab to Ghati hospital, Aurangabad and on the basis of the said report, thereafter, offence under Sections 452, 147, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC came to be registered. Thereafter, Shaikh Tayyab expired on 14.2.2011 at about 6.30 am and, therefore, offence under Section 306 of IPC came to be added.
b. After the FIR was lodged, panchanama of the spot was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. It appears that prior to the death of Shaikh Tayyab, all the accused persons came to be arrested in between 19.1.2011 to 21.1.2011. After demise of Shaikh Tayyab, inquest panchanama was drawn and dead body was sent for post mortem. His cause of death is 'poisoning'. However, viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. It appears further that a re
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
