2024:BHC-NAG:2711-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 136 & 137 OF 2017.

…..

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2017.

1. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Age about 22 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Murewada, Taluqa-Etapalli, District – Gadchiroli.

2. Pandu Pora Narote, Age about 27 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Murewada, Taluqa-Etapalli, District – Gadchiroli.

3. Hem Keshavdatta Mishra, Age about 32 years, Occupation – Education, R/o Kunjbargal, Post – Nagarkhan, District – Almoda (Uttarakhand).

4) Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar, Age about 54 years, Occupation – Journalist, R/o 87, Chandrashekhar Nagar, Krushikesh, Deharadun, Uttarakhand.

5) Vijay Nan Tirki, Age about 30 years, Occupation – Labour, R/o Beloda, Post – P.V. 92, Dharampur, Taluqa – Pakhanjoor, District – Kanker (C.G.). …. APPELLANTS.

VERSUS State of Maharashtra, through PSO Aheri, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. …. RESPONDENT.

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2017.

G.N. Saibaba, Aged about 47 years, Occupation – Service (suspended), R/o 100, B-Block, Hill View Apartments, Vasant Vihar, Near PVR Cinema, New Delhi. …. APPELLANT.

VERSUS State of Maharashtra, through PSO Aheri, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. …. RESPONDENT _________________________________________________________

Mr. Pradeep Mandhyan with Mr. Barunkumar and Mr. H.P. Lingayat, Advocates for appellant Nos. 1 to 3 (Appeal No. 136/2017).

Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Barunkumar & Mr. H.P. Lingayat, Advocates for appellant Nos. 4 & 5 (Appeal No.

136/2017).

Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.B.Rathod, Advocate for appellant (Criminal Appeal No.137/2017).

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate Mr. H.S. Chitale and Mr. Jugal Kanani, Advocates for State, Mr. P.K. Sathinathan Special Counsel for State.

____________________________________________________________

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES JJ.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 07.09.2023 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.03.2024 JUDGMENT : (PER VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Heard.

2. Common judgment and order of conviction dated 07.03.2017 in Sessions Case Nos.13/2014 and 130/2015 under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UAPA’ for short) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short) led convicted accused to challenge the judgment and order by filing two separate appeals.

3. On 22.08.2013, Crime No.3017/2013 was initially registered with the Police Station Aheri, District Gadchiroli against the appellant Mahesh Tirki (accused No.1), Pandu Narote (accused No.2), and Hem Mishra (accused No.3). During the course of investigation, the role of Prashant Sanglikar (accused No.4), Vijay Tirki (accused No.5) and G.N. Saibaba (accused No.6) was revealed. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and numbered as Sessions Case No. 13/2014. It was followed by filing of supplementary charge-sheet on 31.10.2015 numbered as Sessions Case No. 130/2015.

4. After ensuring compliance in terms of Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the Trial Court framed charges on 21.02.2015 against all six accused for the offence punishable under Sections 10, 13, 20, 38, 39 read with Section 18 of the UAPA and under Section 120-B of the IPC. On the accused pleading to be tried, the prosecution has examined as many as 25 witnesses to establish the guilt of accused. The prosecution was also banking upon certain documents to establish the guilt with requisite standard of proof. On completion of evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code to seek their explanation on incriminating material. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. The accused have denied seizure of incriminating material from their possession claiming it to be planted and fabricated. The accused did not examine any witnesses in defence. On the assessment of oral and do