SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 28

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
G. R. Majitha, *Vishnu Sahai, JJ.
Basanna Nigonda Hattali and Others v. State of Maharashtra
Sessions Case No. 54 of 1992



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Adik Shirodkar, Mr. V. M. Thorat
For the Respondents: Mr. K. H. Chopda; Mr. T. E. Mane

In riot cases, convictions require clear evidence detailing each accused's participation; injured witnesses’ testimonies, backed by medical evidence, may suffice for conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 304, 323, and 325 - Conviction for murder and other offences - Appellants convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for their respective roles in an election-related riot that resulted in death and injuries - Evidence of three injured witnesses considered credible and corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 17, 27)

(B) Standard of proof in riot cases - Court must convict only those accused for whom there is cogent and reliable evidence detailing specific roles played - Benefit of doubt granted to certain appellants due to insufficient evidence linking them directly to the crime. (Paras 20, 24, 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, involved in a political rivalry during village elections, attacked the deceased and injured witnesses resulting in a fatal assault on the deceased and various injuries to the others. The incident occurred on the night of 12-11-1991, leading to the lodging of an FIR promptly after the attack.

Findings of Court:
Credible evidence supported by medical examinations confirmed involvement of the main accused, while benefit of the doubt was granted to others due to inconsistencies in their involvement.

Issues: The court addressed questions regarding the sufficiency of evidence in riot cases, particularly concerning the specific roles of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Testimony of injured witnesses can be scientifically robust if corroborated by medical evidence; identification of the role of each appellant is critical in riot cases.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; convictions and sentences of some appellants upheld, while others were set aside.

Table of Content
1. details of the incident and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. trial procedure and evidence presentation. (Para 7 , 8)
3. arguments and defenses presented. (Para 9 , 10)
4. credibility of eye-witnesses and corroborative evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. evaluation of evidence regarding appellants. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. assessment of specific roles of accused. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. conclusions on lack of evidence against particular appellants. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
8. final legal contentions and court's rationale. (Para 26)
9. final verdict and order of the court. (Para 27 , 28)

1 .Vide judgment and order dated 24-8-1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1992, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :
(i) Basanna Nigonda Hattali (appellant No. 1), Malku Bhimraya Hattali (appellant No. 8), Tamrayya Nigonda Patil (appellant No. 12) and Mallensha Nigonda Patil (appellant No. 13) under S.302 read with S.34, I.P.C. to life imprisonment;
(ii) Chandrakant Murgappa Umrani (appellant No. 2), Laxman Hanmant Hattali (appellant No. 3), Dundeppa Shivappa Umrani (appellant No. 4), Pandurang Jagannath Nikam (appellant No. 6), Mohan Baliram Koli (appellant No. 7), Sangappa Bhimraya Hattali (appellant No. 9), Malkanna Annarayya Birajdar (appellant No. 10) and Kallappa Ramchandra Hattali (appellant No. 11) under S.304, Part II, I.P.C. read with 34, I.P.C., to 5 years R. I. and under S.323 read with 34, I.P.C. to 6 months R. I. Malkanna Annarayya Birajdar (appellant No. 10), was further convicted under S.325 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years R. I.
(iii) Vithal Krishna Nikam (appellant No. 5) under S.304, Part II read with 34, I.P.C. to 5 years R. I. and under S.325 read with 34, I.P.C. to 3 years R. I. The sentences of all the appellants, excepting appellants Nos. 1, 8, 12 and 13 were directed to run concurrently. It is these convictions and sentences of the appellants which have been challenged in the present appeal.



2. The prosecution case, in brief, as emerges from the recitals contained in the FIR and the statements of the three injured witnesses viz. Sangappa Birajdar (P.W. 1), Sidharaya Loni (P.W. 6) and Digambar Appasaheb Pawar (P. W. 11) runs as follows :
The appellants on one side and the victims on the other are residents of village Chikalgi, situate within the limits of Taluka and police station Mangalwedha, District Sholapur. On 14-11-1991 an election was scheduled for Co - operative Society of village : Chikalgi. Two parties were contesting the election. One of them was led by appellant No. 13 Mallesha Nigonda Patil, and the other by Ishwarappa Birajdar. The informant and others are said to have belonged to the party of Ishwarappa.
On 12-11-1991, Sangappa Birajdar (P. W. 1), Sidharaya Loni (P. W. 6) Digambar Pawar (P.W. 11) (the three injured) and the deceased Sankonda Birajdar had gone on cycles to the house of one Dariyya Birajdar to hire a tractor belonging to him for bringing the voters in the election, scheduled for 14-11-1991. Dariyappa informed them that his tractor was out of order, but, insisted that before leaving they should have tea. Consequently, the aforesaid persons had tea at Dariyappa's place. While they were returning on cycles, to village Chikkalgi, by the road, leading from Raddhe to Shrirnandgi, and had reached the field of one Ganendra Nikam, all of a sudden the 13 appellants emerged before them. As the time was about 10 p.m. they could be recognised because, there was moon light. They asked the informant Sidhrayya and others as to why they were contesting elections against them. Appellant Basanna Nigonda Hattali was armed with an axe, appellant Chandrakant Murgappa Umrani was armed with a handle of an axe and the remaining appellants were armed with sticks. Thereafter, an assault was launched by the appellants on the informant and others.
Appellants Basanna Nigonda Hattali, Malku B

















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top