Cri. Appeal No.772/2015

:: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.772 OF 2015

1)

Ravindra Ambar Naik,

Age 23 years, Occu. Agri.

2)

Somnath Abhiman More,

Age 22 years, Occu. Agri.

3)

Anil Sukdeo More

Age 23 years,

No.1 R/o Bupkari,

No.2 and 3 R/o Varde- Temhe

Tal. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar

… APPELLANTS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra

Through P.S.O., Police Station-

Shahada, Tal. Shahada,

Dist. Nandurbar

(Copy to be served through the

Office of the Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Judicature of Bombay,

Bench at Aurangabad)

… RESPONDENT

.......

Mr. S.U. Chaudhari, Advocate for appellants

Mr. P.G. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent – State

....…

Cri. Appeal No.772/2015

:: 2 ::

CORAM :

R. G. AVACHAT, AND

R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

Date of reserving judgment : 14th December, 2022

Date of pronouncing judgment : 19th December, 2022

JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.):

This is an appeal against conviction. The

appellants, vide impugned judgment and order dated

3/9/2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Shahada in Sessions Case No.53/2012, have been convicted

for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, sentenced

to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-

each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2

months. The appellants are also convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been

directed to run concurrently.

2.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as

follows :

Bijubai (P.W.7) was residing along with her

Cri. Appeal No.772/2015

:: 3 ::

husband Bhima (deceased) at village Bhupkari, Taluka

Shahada, District Nandurbar. The couple is blessed which a

child. Appellant Ravindra along with his wife was residing in

the neighbourhood of the informant at village Bhupkari itself.

Appellant Somnath and Anil are the close relations of

appellant Ravindra. The appellants came together to the

house of the informant. It was about 7.30 p.m. They gave

call to Bhima (deceased). They questioned him as to why did

he insult Surekhabai (wife of appellant Ravindra). All of the

appellants mounted attack on Bhima. Appellant Ravindra

assaulted him with an axe. Appellants Somnath and Anil beat

Bhima with sticks. When the informant intervened, she too

was not spared. The informant went to village Prakasha. She

was apprehensive of the appellants. She stayed at village

Prakasha overnight. On the following day, she lodged the

First Information Report (F.I.R. - Exh.33).

3.

Police had already arrived in the village pursuant

to a call by villagers. An inquest panchanama was drawn.

Based on the F.I.R. (Exh.33), crime came to be registered. It

was investigated as well. On completion of the investigation,

the appellants were proceeded against by filing a charge

sheet.

Cri. Appeal No.772/2015

:: 4 ::

4.

On committal of the case, the trial Court framed

the charge (Exh.6). Appellants pleaded not guilty. The

prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced in evidence

certain documents.

5.

The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence

before it, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated

above.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit

that, except the informant, no prosecution witness gave

evidence against any of the appellants. According to him, the

F.I.R. was lodged 28 hours after the incident. The informant

was not at the village. She was an interested witness. No

conviction could be based on the sole testimony of an

interested witness. He relied on a judgment of the Apex

Court in case of Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam reported in

(1993) 3 SCC 282. He would further submit that, the

informant was a trib