JUDGMENT :

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2016 has been filed by original accused Nos.1 to 6, who faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli, however, Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2017 is then separately filed by accused No.5 – Nana Bhimrao Patil (Dukre) through another Advocate. All of them are challenging their conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 506(II) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos.2 and 4 in addition have challenged their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction was awarded to them on 25.02.2016, whereas Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2016 is filed by original informant challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.7 to 9 from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 354, 506(II) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, by the same judgment, in the said case, by the same Judge. Under such circumstance, all the appeals are taken up for hearing together.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Bora holding for learned Advocate Mr. M. D. Shinde for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2016, learned Advocate Mr. Joydeep Chatterji for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2017, learned Advocate Mr. Shaikh Ashpak Taher Patel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2016 and learned APP Mr. A. V. Deshmukh for the respondents – State in all the matter.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the informant Dipak Sadashiv Khandare is a Professor with Women’s BCA College, Parbhani, however, his native place is village Dol-Umri Taluka and District Hingoli. His parents reside in the said village. He has four sisters and all of them are married and residing with their respective husbands. Informant’s family is having ancestral property bearing Gat No.107 at village Digras Vani. His parents were in need of money for performing marriage of informant’s sister Punyalatabai and, therefore, according to the informant out of the ancestral property, land admeasuring 1 H 20 R was mortgaged to accused No.1 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-, however, document in the nature of sale-deed was executed. His parents had gone to repay the said amount in the year 2003, however, accused No.1 refused to accept the money. Prior to that a well was sanctioned through Panchayat Samiti, Hingoli under a government scheme and, therefore, when they were digging the well in the year 1998-1999, accused No.1 raised dispute. The land was still in possession of the parents of the informant. Accused No.1 had then knocked the doors of the Civil Court, however, it was decided in favour of the informant’s parents in 2004. Accused No.1 then preferred appeal, which came to be allowed and then his parents have approached this Court. The matter was still pending on the date of the FIR and this Court had granted status quo. Though the said Court proceedings were pending, Talathi of the village mutated the name of accused No.1 in the records of right possession column in the year 2009-2010. Informant’s parents had then preferred appeal to challenge the Talathi’s decision with Sub Divisional Officer. The decision was then taken that the Tahsildar would visit the land, draw panchanama and make inquiry on 18.01.2023. The said notice was given by Talathi - Dhabe through phone call, however, on the said date i.e. 18.01.2013, neither Tahsildar, nor Talathi visited the field till 3.00 p.m. The informant has further contended that he received a phone call around 4.00 p.m. on the same day from sister Punyalata that she and parents have been beaten by in all 10 persons with sticks, iron rod, axe and stones. Therefore, informant contacted his relative and asked him to shift the injured persons in the hospital. He also started to go towards the village and he could catch up the ambulance and private vehicle, which were taking his