The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented by the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence charged, and in the absence of such proof, the accused cannot be held guilty.

JUDGEMENT :

G. A. Sanap, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 in a Sessions Case No.06/2007. Criminal Appeal No.237/2009 has been filed by the appellants against the conviction and sentence. The Criminal Appeal No.398/2009 has been filed by the State against the order of the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellants in Appeal No.237/2009 and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No.398/2009 were accused Nos.1 to 4 in the Sessions Trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 and 4 for the offences punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.2 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentence awarded to the accused Nos. 1 and 4 were directed to run concurrently.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the appellants would be referred by their nomenclature in the Sessions trial. The First Information Report was registered on the report of informant-Dipak, who is the son of deceased Ramdas Pingale. The accused and the deceased are the residents of Onkarkheda, Taluka Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District Amravati. The deceased was residing alongwith his wife Kamla and son Dipak. The accused No.2 is the son of the accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.1. The accused No.4, at the relevant time, was working as agricultural labourer with the accused No.1. The incident as can be seen from the First Information Report occurred on 24/07/2006 at about 4.00 a.m. The accused as per the case of the prosecution were alleging that the deceased had an evil eye upon the accused No.3- Panchfula.

4. Informant-Dipak on 24.07.2006 at about 4.00 a.m. woke up hearing commotion and the cries of his mother Kamla, who was outside the house. Informant-Dipak, therefore, came out of the house. He saw that the deceased was tied to an almond tree by the accused Nos.1 to 4 with a rope. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were armed with sticks. The accused No.3 Panchfula was armed with a sandal (Chappal). All the accused were assaulting the deceased by means of weapons carried by them. The mother of the informant-Dipak (Kamla) requested the accused not to assault the deceased. The accused did not pay heed to her request. On the suggestion of his mother, Dipak went to call Haridas Wamanrao Bhoyar (PW-6). He and Shri Bhoyar came to the spot of the incident. The accused by that time had fled from the spot. The Dipak-informant and Haridas Bhoyar went to the police station. They narrated the incident to the Police. The Police visited the spot. They found that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused.

5. On the basis of the report, crime bearing No.78/2006 came to be registered against the accused. Dilip Subhedar Gawde (PW-9) Police Inspector carried out the investigation. He visited the scene of offence and drew the Panchanama. He held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest Panchanama. The articles were seized from the spot. He obtained the postmortem report. He arrested the accused.