Bombay High Court
Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 September, 2017
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: V.K.Tahilramani, Revati Mohite Dere
1/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.563 OF 2005
1. Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde
Age. 42 years, Occ.: Agriculture
2. Sarjerao Pralhad Raut,
Age. 38 years, Occ.: Agriculture
3. Suresh Rajaram Sarde
Age. 40 years, Occ.: Agriculture
4. Shantabai Ganpat Gidde,
Age. 47 years, Occ.: Household
5. Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde
Age. 36 years, Occ.: Agriculture
6. Hanmant Eknath Laad,
Age. 23 years, Occ.: Agriculture
7. Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale,
Age. 45 years, Occ.: Agriculture
8. Tukaram Rajaram Sarde,
Age. 53 years, Occ.: Agriculture
R/o. Sapatne-Bhose, Tal.Madha,
District-Solapur.
9. Shobha Yuvraj Raut,
Age. 19 years, Occ. :Household,
R/o.Sapatne, Tal.Madha, ...Appellants
District-Solapur (Orig. Accused Nos.1,
3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14
and 15 respectively)
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:58 :::
2/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Madha Police Station,
District - Solapur). ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1385 OF 2016
(For Cancellation of Bail)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.563 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
(Through vide C.R.No.49 of 2003,
registered with Madha Police Station, ...Applicant
Solapur (Rural) (Orig. Respondent)
Versus
Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde
Age 45 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/at Saptane Bhos, ...Respondent
Tal. Madha, District - Solapur. (Orig. Accd. No.1)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.603 OF 2005
1. Kisan Vitthal Raut,
Age. 20 years, Occ.: Agriculture
2. Ganpat Rajaram Sarde,
Age. 47 years, Occ.: Agriculture
3. Hanmant Ganpat Gidde,
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:58 :::
3/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
Age.23 years, Occ.: Agriculture
4. Balaji Ganpat Gidde,
Age. 20 years, Occ.: Household
5. Yuvraj Suresh Raut,
Age. 28 years, Occ.: Agriculture
6. Bibhishan Vitthal Raut,
Age. 25 years, Occ.: Agriculture
R/o. Sapatne-Bhose, Tal. Madha,
District-Solapur. ... Appellants.
(Orig. Accused Nos.2,
4, 7, 8, 12 and 13
respectively)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Madha Police Station,
District - Solapur). ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1384 OF 2016
(For Cancellation of Bail)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.603 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
(Through vide C.R.No.49 of 2003,
registered with Madha Police Station, ...Applicant
Solapur (Rural) (Orig. Respondent)
Versus
1. Hanmant Ganpat Gidde,
Age 45 years, Occ : Agriculture.
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:58 :::
4/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
2. Yuvraj Suresh Raut,
Age 41 years, Occ : Agriculture.
3. Bibhishan Vitthal Raut,
Age 40 years, Occ : Agriculture.
All the above R/at Saptane Bhos, ...Respondents
Tal. Madha, District - Solapur. (Orig. Accd. Nos.7,
12, 13)
Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.B.R.Patil and
Ms.U.V.Kejriwal i/b Mr.M.A.Chaudhari, for the Appellants in
Criminal Appeal Nos.563 of 2005 and 603 of 2005 and for the
Respondents in Criminal Application Nos.1384 and 1385 of 2016.
Mr. H. J. Dedia, A.P.P for the State.
Mr.Jaydeep Mane, for the Original Complainant.
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 3rd MAY, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1. Criminal Appeal No.563 of 2005 is preferred by nine accused i.e. Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde (original accused no.1), Sarjerao Pralhad Raut (original accused no.3), Suresh Rajaram Sarde (original accused no.5), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde, (original accused no.6), Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde (original ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:58 ::: 5/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc accused no.9), Hanmant Eknath Laad, (original accused no.10), Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale (original accused no.11), Tukaram Rajaram Sarde (original accused no.14) and Shobha Yuvraj Raut, (original accused no.15) and Criminal Appeal No.603 of 2005 is preferred by six accused i.e. Kisan Vitthal Raut (original accused no.2), Ganpat Rajaram Sarde (original accused no.4), Hanmant Ganpat Gidde, (original accused no.7), Balaji Ganpat Gidde (original accused no.8), Yuvraj Suresh Raut (original accused no.12) and Bibhishan Vitthal Raut (original accused no.13). Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellants by their names and numbers i.e. original accused numbers as set out in the Sessions Case.
2. The aforesaid two criminal appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 29 th April, 2005, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellants, for the offences stated hereinunder:-
− Kisan Vitthal Raut (A2), Ganpat Rajaram Sarde, (A4) Hanmant Ganpat Gidde (A7) and Yuvraj Suresh Raut (A12), for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:58 ::: 6/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days (for the death of Machindra Mahadeo Garad);
− Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde (A1), Sarjerao Pralhad Raut (A3), Suresh Rajaram Sarde (A5), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde, (A6), Balaji Ganpat Gidde (A8), Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde, (A9), Hanmant Eknath Laad (A10), Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale (A11), Bibhishan Vitthal Raut (A13), Tukaram Rajaram Sarde, (A14) and Shobha Yuvraj Raut, (A15), for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years (for the assault on Machindra Mahadeo Garad); − Kisan Vitthal Raut (A2), Ganpat Rajaram Sarde (A4), Balaji Ganpat Gidde (A8), Yuvraj Suresh Raut (A12), Bibhishan Vitthal Raut (A13), for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days (for the assault on Tanaji Mahadeo Garad); − Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde (A.1), Sarjerao Pralhad Raut (A3), Suresh Rajaram Sarde (A5), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde, (A6), Hanmant Ganpat Gidde (A7), Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde, (A.9) Hanmant Eknath Laad (A10), ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 7/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale (A11), Tukaram Rajaram Sarde (A14) and Shobha Yuvraj Raut, (A15) for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one week (for the assault on Tanaji Mahadeo Garad);
All the appellants are convicted for the offences punishable, under Section 147 r/w 149 and under Section 148 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, however, no separate sentence was awarded for the said offences in view of the sentence imposed on them for other offences. − Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde (A1), Sarjerao Pralhad Raut (A3), Suresh Rajaram Sarde (A5), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde, (A6), Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde (A9), Hanmant Eknath Laad (A10), Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale (A11), Tukaram Rajaram Sarde (A14) and Shobha Yuvraj Raut (A15), for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months (for the assault on Navnath Mahadeo Garad); − Hanmant Ganpat Gidde (A7), for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 8/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc for one week;
(All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) All the appellants were however acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as under:-
The complainant-Navnath Mahadeo Garad was residing at village Laul, Taluka Madha, Solapur, with his parents, wife, children and brothers. Out of Navnath's three sisters, one sister-Yashoda was married to Mukunda Sawant, a resident of Sapatane-Bhose, Taluka-Madha, Solapur. Yashoda was residing with her husband and children at Sapatane and was doing agricultural work. Eight days prior to the date of the incident, Yashoda is stated to have come to Navnath's (complainant's) house with her husband-Mukunda and disclosed that Hanmant Ganpat Gidde (A7), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde (A6) and their family members were abusing them and had even assaulted them, for not attending their agricultural work. Yashoda is also stated to have disclosed to the complainant and the family that ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 9/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Hanmant Gidde (A7), and his family members were threatening to kill them. Navnath, his brothers and parents pacified Yashoda and her husband and sent them back to Sapatane. According to the prosecution, on 20th November, 2003, Yashoda again came to Village-Laul and disclosed to Navnath (complainant), that Hanmant Gidde (A7) had assaulted her, pursuant to which Navnath escorted his sister to Sapatane at about 8.00 p.m., and dropped her home. Thereafter, Navnath went to Hanmant Gidde's house and asked why he was ill-treating his sister and brother-in-law and requested him not to ill-treat them. It is alleged that Hanmant Gidde (A7) and his mother Shantabai (A6) abused Navnath, pursuant to which Navnath asked them not to abuse him and told them, that if his sister and brother-in-law had committed any mistake, then he would bring them, and make them tender an apology. Thereafter, Navnath is stated to have gone to Kurduwadi and then returned to Laul at about 9.00 p.m. According to Navnath, while returning to Laul, at Bhosare- Ghatne, Hanmant Gidde (A7), Balaji (A8) and Dattu Gidde (A9) assaulted him. Navnath on his return to Laul, disclosed the said incident to his parents and brothers. On the next day i.e. 21 st ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 10/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc November, 2003 at about 7.00 a.m., Navnath lodged a complaint with the Kurduwadi Police Station and returned to Laul at about 10.00 a.m. On the same day i.e. 21st November, 2003 at about 10.30 - 11.00 a.m; Navnath, his brothers-Tanaji and Machindra and brother-in-law - Santosh Bedge left Laul, to attend the marriage ceremony of Satish Krushna Gholap's daughter. On the way, they visited Sapatane, to settle the dispute between Hanmant Gidde (A7) and Yashoda. Navnath and others visited Yashoda's house and thereafter, proceeded to Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house, situated by the Sapatane-Laul road. According to the prosecution, when Navnath, Tanaji, Machindra and Santosh reached Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) vasti, they saw Hanmant Gidde (A7) and all the other accused coming in their direction. The said persons are stated to have been armed with swords, sickles, iron rods, axes and sticks. It is alleged that Hanmant Gidde (A7) started abusing Navnath (complainant) and his brothers and asked Navnath, whether he had brought his brothers and brother-in-law to assault them. Hanmant Gidde (A7) is thereafter stated to have assaulted Machindra on his head with a sword. ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
11/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Balaji Gidde (A8) is also stated to have assaulted Tanaji with a sickle on his head. When, Navnath and his brother-in-law requested the accused not to assault Tanaji and Machindra, the accused allegedly continued to assault them, pursuant to which, both Tanaji and Machindra fell down. When Navnath and his brother-in-law tried to save Tanaji and Machindra, some of the accused allegedly assaulted Navnath and his brother-in-law- Santosh with sticks and iron rod. Navnath (PW 10) and Tanaji (PW 5) have in detail disclosed the assault. On hearing hue and cry, Yashoda, her family members and other villagers came to the spot, pursuant to which the accused left the spot. Navnath with the help of others, took his brothers i.e. Tanaji and Machindra for medical treatment to Kurduwadi.
Machindra was first taken to Dr.Wagle's Hospital and then to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, as Dr.Wagle had expressed his inability to give treatment. Both, Tanaji and Machindra were taken to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, in an unconscious condition. Tanaji is alleged to have regained consciousness only on 24th November, 2003.
In the meantime, on the basis of the complaint lodged ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 12/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc by Navnath on 21st November, 2003, investigation commenced. The police visited the spot, prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit - 26), seized the soil mixed with blood from the spot and arrested the accused. The clothes of some of the accused were seized. The police also seized the clothes of the complainant- Navnath, injured-Tanaji and Machindra (deceased).
Whilst in custody, some of the appellant - accused showed their willingness to produce weapons which were concealed by them, pursuant to which weapons were recovered.
On 29th November, 2003, Machindra expired at S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, and hence Section 302 was added. Accordingly, the police drew the inquest panchanama. The said inquest panchanama is at Exhibit - 24. The dead body of Machindra was sent to the Civil Hospital, Solapur for postmortem alongwith the inquest panchanama. On 30 th November, 2003, Dr.Kamble (PW 8) performed the postmortem on deceased Machindra. The probable cause of death was stated to be 'Head Injury". The postmortem report, is at Exhibit - 46. The Investigating Officer sent the seized articles to the Chemical Analyser, Pune. After completion of the investigation, charge- ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
13/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madha, as against the appellants alleging offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Solapur.
The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and false implication.
The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses. PW 1-Suresh Bajrang Salve, panch to the inquest panchanama (Exhibit - 24), PW 2- Laxman Tayappa Raut, panch to the spot panchanama (Exhibit-26), PW 3-Shiwaji Govind Sathe and PW 4-Bhiva Mahadu Gadde, Panchas to the seizure of weapons and clothes at the instance of some of the accused were declared hostile; PW 5-Tanaji Mahadeo Garad, an injured eye witness; PW 6-Ashok Bhagwan Gavali, panch to the seizure of clothes of the injured and the deceased was also declared hostile; PW 7-Dr.Anwar Moulali Shaikh, the Resident Medical Officer of S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, who examined ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 14/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Machindra (deceased) on 21st November, 2003 and treated him; PW 8-Dr.Suryakant Baburao Kamble, the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Solapur who conducted the postmortem on deceased Machindra; PW 9-Dr.Pravin Vishnupanth Ingale, the Resident Medical Officer of S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, who examined Tanaji Garad on 21st November, 2003 and issued the injury certificate, which is at Exhibit - 49; PW 10-Navnath Mahadeo Garad, complainant and injured eye witness, who lodged the FIR dated 22nd November, 2003, which is at Exhibit - 53; PW 11 - Maqbool Dastagir Tamboli, the police constable Madha Police Station, who carried the articles to the Chemical Analyser; PW 12 - Ramhari Balu Bhosale, Police Head Constable, Madha Police Station; and PW 13 - P.I. Yeshwant Anna Matkar, the investigating officer in the said case.
4. The appellant-accused examined DW 1-Dr.Arjun Govind Mukutrao, in support of their defence, to show that Navnath could not have been present at the time of assault, and as such could not have witnessed the incident. The appellant- accused also examined DW 2 - Dr.Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, to ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 15/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc show that the prosecution had deliberately not examined Santosh Bedge, (complainant's brother-in-law) as his examination would show the falsity of the complaint/FIR.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, after hearing the parties, was pleased to, convict and sentence the appellant-accused as aforestated in para 2.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. We may note, that the matter was heard in January, 2017 and was reserved for orders, however, as certain points were left to be addressed, we listed the appeal again in May, 2017, for hearing the parties on certain points, including on the point of alternate sentence and on compensation. Mr.Shirish Gupte, learned senior counsel appearing for all the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the said case. He submitted that no independent witness has been examined in the said case and that the only witnesses who have been examined are PW 5 - Tanaji and PW 10-Navnath, who ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 16/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc are related and interested witnesses. He submitted that the prosecution has not examined Yashoda, the complainant's sister, on account of whom the alleged incident took place, thus raising some doubt about the genesis of the incident. Mr.Gupte submitted that the presence of PW 10-Navnath at the spot of the incident, was doubtful, considering the evidence of DW 1- Dr.Arjun Govind Mukutrao, Medical Officer, (Rural), Kurduwadi. According to Mr.Gupte, the evidence of DW 1 - Dr.Mukutrao, shows that he had examined Navnath on the day of the incident i.e. on 21st November, 2003 at about 10.30 a.m., for an assault which had taken place on 20th November, 2003 at 9.30 p.m., thus, making Navnath's presence doubtful at the spot on 21 st November, 2003, at 10.30 a.m., when and where the incident is alleged to have taken place. He submitted that non-examination of Santosh Bedge also makes the prosecution case suspect. He submitted that despite Santosh Bedge, having received injuries, as is evident from the evidence of DW 2 - Dr.Mohite, the prosecution has deliberately not examined him. Mr.Gupte further submitted that there was no real motive which has come on record, for the appellants to assault Machindra and Tanaji. ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
17/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc According to the learned senior counsel, the appellants have been falsely implicated in the said case, due to the political rivalry between the appellants' group and the complainant's side. He submitted that the learned Judge has rightly rejected the recovery evidence, considering several lacunae in the same. He submitted that there are several improbabilities and inconsistencies, which have come on record, to show that the incident had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that deceased - Machindra, complainant - Navnath and other injured (Tanaji and Santosh) had no reason to be there at the spot inasmuch as, they were on their way to attend a wedding at Kuranwadi, which was in a different direction. He submitted that the deceased and the injured appear to have received injuries, in a stone pelting incident i.e. stone pelting by the villagers, teachers, students and passer-bys'. According to the learned senior counsel, the same is supported by the spot panchanama, which shows that there were stones lying around the house of the appellant - Hanmant Gidde (A7). Mr.Gupte submitted that considering the evidence on record, the prosecution had failed to prove its case as against the appellants ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 18/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc beyond reasonable doubt and as such the appellants be acquitted of all the offences for which they are convicted. In the alternative, he submitted that in the facts, the offence if any, would be one under Section 326 and not under Section 302. He submitted that the accused be let out on undergone sentence and instead the fine amount be enhanced.
8. Learned APP supported the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that the prosecution had established motive, for the appellants to attack and assault the deceased and others. He submitted that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and were waiting for them, at the spot, where the incident took place and after seeing them mounted an assault on them. He further submitted that the evidence of the doctors who examined Machindra (deceased) and Tanaji, shows the nature of injuries sustained by them, that they were grievous in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He submitted that Tanaji regained consciousness on 24th November, 2003 i.e. after 3 days and was hospitalised for 14 days, whereas, Machindra ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 19/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc succumbed to his injuries on 29th November, 2003. He submitted that although several suggestions were made to the eye witnesses, the said suggestions were categorically denied by them. He further submitted that the appellants have not denied or disputed their presence at the spot of the incident. According to Mr.Dedia, the learned APP, Tanaji's and Navnath's evidence shows that they are reliable and trustworthy witnesses and that there evidence cannot be discarded on the ground, that they being related to the deceased, are interested witnesses. Learned APP submitted that considering the evidence on record, the appeals be dismissed.
9. We have in detail, heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. at length and with their assistance have scrutinized the evidence and documents on record.
10. The prosecution in support of its case, has essentially relied on; (i) two eye-witnesses to the said incident i.e. PW 5 - Tanaji and PW 10-Navnath and (ii) the evidence of the medical ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 20/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc officers i.e. PW 7-Dr.Anwar, PW 8 - Dr.Kamble and PW 9 - Dr.Ingale.
11. We first propose to examine the occular evidence adduced by the prosecution, as there is no serious dispute that Machindra succumbed to the injuries and that Tanaji received injuries in the incident of 21st November, 2003. The question which arises is who was responsible for the said injuries. The two witnesses examined in that behalf, by the prosecution, are, PW 10 - Navnath Garad and PW 5 - Tanaji Garad.
12. Navnath Mahadeo Garad (PW10) is the complainant and an injured eye-witness to the incident of assault. He has stated that Machindra (deceased), Tanaji (PW 5) are his brothers and that he has three sisters; and that he and his brothers are residing at village-Laul, Taluka Madha with their parents and families. He has stated that his one sister - Yashoda, was married to Mukunda Sawant and that they were residing at Sapatane-Bhose, Taluka-Madha, Solapur with their son Dashrath and four daughters. He has further stated that his sister ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 21/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Yashoda and her husband Mukunda were working as labourers in the agricultural land of Hanmant Gidde (A7), for the last 5 to 6 years. He has stated that after his sister and her husband purchased 2 acres of agricultural land, they started working in their own land, and as such stopped working in the field of Hanmant Gidde (A7).
13. According to PW 10 - Navnath, eight days prior to the date of the incident, his sister - Yashoda and her husband- Mukunda had come to Laul and disclosed, that the appellant Hanmant Gidde (A7), Shanta Gidde (A6) and Balaji Gidde (A8) were abusing them, as they had stopped working in their field. They also disclosed that the said persons had threatened to kill them. He has stated that he and his brothers and parents pacified Yashoda and her husband and sent them back to Sapatane, Solapur. According to Navnath, on 20 th November, 2003, Yashoda again came to Laul and disclosed to him, that Hanmant Gidde (A7) and Balaji Gidde (A8) had assaulted her, as she had stopped working in their field. He has stated that he accompanied Yashoda, and dropped her home at Sapatane at ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 22/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc about 7 to 8 p.m, and then went to Hanmant Gidde's (A7's ) house. He has stated that he asked Hanmant Gidde (A7), why he was ill treating his sister - Yashoda, pursuant to which Hanmant's mother i.e. Shantabai (A6) came and abused him. He has stated that he told them that they are relatives and if there was some mistake on his sister's and brother-in-law's part, they would apologize to them. He also disclosed that he would bring them on the next day, for tendering an apology. PW 10-Navnath has further stated that he thereafter, went to his sister - Kashibai's house at Kurduwadi and then returned back to Laul. He has stated that on the way to Laul, at Bhosare-Ghatne, Hanmant Gidde (A7), Balaji Gidde (A8) and Dattu Gidde (A9) assaulted him; that on his return to Laul, he disclosed the incident to his parents and brothers; that on the next day at 7.00 a.m., he went to Kurduwadi Police Station and lodged a complaint; and that after lodging the complaint, he returned back to Laul at about 10.00 a.m.
14. According to PW 10-Navnath, when he returned to Laul, Machindra (deceased), Tanaji (PW 5) and his brother-in-law ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 23/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Santosh Bedge, were present in the house. He has stated that all of them set out to attend the marriage ceremony of Satish Gholap's daughter, and also decided to settle the dispute between Hanmant Gidde (A7) and Yashoda. He has further stated that at Yashoda's house, he told his brothers and Santosh, that they should visit Hanmant Gidde's house and settle the dispute, pursuant to which all of them went towards Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house. Babasaheb Garad, is also stated to have accompanied them. According to PW 10 - Navnath, he saw Hanmant Gidde (A7), Balaji Gidde (A8), Dattu Gidde (A9), Mahadeo Gidde (A1), Shantabai Gidde (A6), Shobha Raut, (A15), Yuvraj Raut (A12), Kisan Raut (A2), Bibhishan Raut (A13), Tukaram Sarde (A14), Suresh Sarde (A5), Ganpat Sarde (A4), Suryabhan Ubale (A11), Hanmant Laad (A10) and Sarjerao Raut (A3) at the Laul-Sapatane road. He has stated that Hanmant Gidde (A7) was armed with a sword; Balaji Gidde (A8), Yuvraj Raut (A12) and Hanmant Laad (A10) were armed with sickles; Bibhishan (A13) with an axe; Kisan (A2) with a sword; Mahadeo (A1), Dattu Gidde (A9) and Suresh (A5) with iron rods; and Tukaram Sarde (A14), Sarjerao Raut (A3) and Baban Patil ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 24/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc @Suryabhan Ubale (A11) with sticks. Navnath has stated that Hanmant Gidde (A7) abused them by uttering the words 'Aayee Ghalya' (vkbZ ?kkY;k) and asked him whether he had got his brothers and brother-in-law to assault. According to Navnath, Hanmant Gidde (A7) assaulted Machindra with a sword on his head; Balaji Gidde (A8) assaulted Tanaji with a sickle on his head; and Bibhishan (A13) assaulted Tanaji on his hand with a sword. PW 10-Navnath has further deposed that when he and Santosh asked the assailants not to assault, Mahadeo Gidde (A1), Dattu Gidde (A9) and Hanmant Laad (A10) assaulted them with sticks and rod. He has stated that Hanmant Laad (A10) gave a sickle blow on Santosh's chin and that Yuvraj Raut (A12), Kisan Raut (A2), Ganpat Sarde (A4) assaulted Machindra and Tanaji with swords and sticks on their hands and legs. According to Navnath, when he and his brother-in-law tried to protect Machindra and Tanaji from being assaulted, Shobha Raut, (A15), Shantabai Gidde, (A6) Baban Patil @ Suryabhan Ubale (A11), Dattu Gidde (A9), Sarjerao Raut, (A3) also assaulted them with stick and rods; and that after hearing their hue and cry, his sister Yashoda, nephew Dashrath, brother-in-law Mukunda came ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 25/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc there, pursuant to which the appellant - accused ran away.
15. According to Navnath, although he had received injuries, the same were not visible. He has stated that both, Tanaji and Machindra had received injuries in the incident. He has stated that he and Dashrath carried Tanaji, and that Santosh and Babasaheb Garad carried Machindra, on their motorcycles to Dr.Wagle's Hospital, at Kurduwadi. He has stated that Dr.Wagle told them that it was not possible for him to give treatment, pursuant to which they carried Machindra and Tanaji to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur. He has stated that they admitted Tanaji and Machindra to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, at about 2 to 3 p.m. According to Navnath, at about 6 to 7 p.m., the police from the Madha police station came to the S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, pursuant to which he lodged a complaint. He has identified the complaint/FIR as being correct. The said FIR is at Exhibit - 53.
16. PW 10 - Navnath has further deposed that the police seized the clothes which he had worn at the time of the incident, ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 26/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc i.e. blood stained pajama and white shirt having three buttons. He has identified the clothes i.e. articles 15 (pajama) and article
- 16 (shirt). He has also identified the weapons with which they were assaulted i.e articles 23 to 35. He has stated that all the accused were known to him.
17. PW 10 - Navnath was cross examined at length. He has admitted in his cross-examination, that he had informed the Kurduwadi Police station of the incident i.e. 20 th November, 2003 on 21st November, 2003 at about 7.00 a.m. He has also admitted that after lodging of the said FIR, the police had sent him for medical treatment to the Primary Health Centre at Kurduwadi at 9.00 a.m., and that pursuant to the same, he visited the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that he was examined by the doctor at about 10.30 a.m., on 21 st November, 2003, and that he had received information at about 2.00 p.m., that his brothers had sustained injuries. An omission was brought on record with regard to the non-disclosure of the previous day's incident i.e assault on him, on 20th November, 2003, in his FIR. Navnath has also admitted in his cross-examination that he had ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 27/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc not disclosed in his complaint; the incident of 20 th November, 2003 i.e. incident of assault at the hands of Hanmant Gidde (A7), Balaji Gidde (A8) and Dattu Gidde (A9) at Bhosare-Ghatne; that his sister Yasodha and her husband had not accompanied them to Kurduwadi, after the assault of 21 st November, 2003; and that he had given information to the medical officer, of S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, regarding the incident.
18. The endeavour of the defence from the tenor of the cross examination of this witness was to suggest (i) that there was no dispute between the deceased and injured on the one hand and Hanmant Gidde (A7), who was the Sarpanch of Sapatane and others on the other; (ii) that the possibility of somebody else assaulting the deceased and injured could not be ruled out, considering the fact that there were cases registered against Navnath and Tanaji, under the Bombay Prohibition Act; (iii) that all the three Garad brothers had decided to drive away Hanmant Gidde (A7), the Sarpanch of the village, as he was an outsider and had 52 acres of agricultural purchased land at Laul, adjacent to Garad's agricultural land; ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
28/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
(iv) that the injured and the deceased had demolished the labourers' houses, who were working for the Sarpanch i.e. Hanmant Gidde and had driven them out of village Laul and had also damaged the brick furnaces on the said land. It was also suggested to the said witness, that he and his brothers had carried several persons/villagers with them, to attack the house of the Sarpanch, and that the villagers from Sapatane, students and teachers from the school got annoyed and attacked them. It was also sought to be suggested, that after a discussion with the leaders of Laul and Sapatane and after consulting an Ex.MLA, a false story was fabricated against the appellant-accused and a false complaint was lodged against them. It was also sought to be suggested that Machindra (deceased ) was a gunda of village Laul and Kurduwadi and was doing illegal business and that he was a terror in the village and in these circumstances, the possibility of somebody else assaulting the deceased could be ruled out. All the said suggestions were categorically denied by PW 10-Navnath. Except suggestions, no material/documents were placed on record in support thereof. Navnath has also denied the suggestion that he was at the P.H.C., Kurduwadi at ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 29/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc about 10:00 a.m to 11:00 a.m, on the day of the incident and as such had not witnessed the incident.
19. Mr.Gupte, learned senior counsel for the appellants, vehemently urged that the presence of PW 10-Navnath was doubtful at the spot i.e. when the incident took place. In support of his submission, Mr.Gupte relied on the evidence of DW 1-Dr. Arjun Mukutrao. He submitted that a perusal of DW 1's evidence, shows that PW 10-Navnath could not have been present at the spot, at the time of the incident, and as such could not have witnessed the incident. Considering the said submission, it would be necessary to consider the evidence of the said witness. DW 1- Dr. Arjun Mukutrao, the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Kurduwadi has stated that on 21st November, 2003, at about 10:30 a.m., Navnath had come with a yadi of Kurduwadi Police Station. The said yadi was produced by him and marked as Exhibit-100. The timing mentioned in the said yadi is 10.30 a.m. He has stated that the case was treated as a medico-legal case and was given an MLC number. He has further stated that Navnath gave history of assault by stick and chain, at 9.30 p.m. ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 30/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc on 20th November, 2003, pursuant to which he prepared the case papers. The said witness produced the original register and case papers of Navnath. He has stated that he examined Navnath on 21st November, 2003 at 10.30 a.m. and found seven injuries on his person, i.e. five contusions on the shoulder, scapular region of back, lateral aspect of right thigh, medial aspect of right knee and on left knee; and 2 abrasions, one on left side of chest and other on the face. DW 1-Dr.Mukutrao has stated that after examining the patient, it took about 20 to 25 minutes for dressing the injuries. He has produced the case paper which is at Exhibit - 102 and the medico legal certificate which is at Exhibit
- 101. In the cross examination of this witness, conducted by the learned APP, it has come on record, that the MLC papers are prepared by the staff and that on Exhibit - 102, another date is mentioned by deleting the previous date. DW 1- Dr.Mukutrao has accepted that the said date mentioned is not in his handwriting. DW 1- Dr.Mukutrao has also admitted that if the condition of the patient was serious then after giving prior treatment to the patient, they would refer the patient for further medical treatment to the Civil Hospital. He has admitted that he had not ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 31/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc mentioned in any document regarding dressing done to the injuries of the patient and the tablet/injection administered to the said patient. He has also admitted, that in the register there is no column, in respect of obtaining thumb impression of the patient. He has also admitted that both the pages of the register are not written at one and same time i.e. Exhibits - 101 and 102 and that they are in different handwriting. According to DW 1- Dr.Mukutrao, the left page of the register is in the original handwriting and the right page is a carbon copy. He has denied the suggestion that he intentionally made an endorsement at Exhibit - 100, that the patient had come to the hospital at 10.30 a.m. He has admitted that he has not mentioned what type of treatment was given to the patient in the register, in the case papers, as also in Exhibit - 101. He has admitted that in case of contusion, five minutes are required for dressing.
20. Before, we proceed to examine and consider, whether PW 10 - Navnath, had witnessed the incident of assault, considering the evidence of the defence witness i.e. DW 1-Dr. Mukutrao, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Apex ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 32/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Court, in the case of State of Haryana v/s Ram Singh1. The Apex Court in the context of the evidentiary value attached to a defence witness has held, that a defence witness is entitled to equal treatment as that of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, needless to state that the testimony of defence witness/witnesses cannot be ignored, if it is found to be clear, cogent and trustworthy.
21. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, if we juxtapose the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, in particular, the evidence of DW 1-Dr.Arjun Mukutrao, we are of the opinion, that the evidence of PW 10 - Navnath ought to be given credence, as we find him to be a natural, reliable and truthful witness. No doubt, DW 1-Dr.Mukutrao is a doctor, having no axe to grind and falsely depose, but we find, that Navnath's evidence and the other material on record, outweighs the evidence of DW 1-Dr. Mukutrao. Dr.Mukutrao was examined, with the sole purpose of showing that he had examined Navnath (PW 10), on 21st November, 2003, at 10.30 a.m., when the alleged incident of assault is stated to have taken place, thus making Navnath's 1 AIR 2002 SC 620 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 33/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc presence at the spot highly improbable. In this light of the matter, it would be necessary to consider Navnath's evidence, as has come on record. A perusal of Navnath's evidence shows that the incident took place at about 11.00 to 11.30 a.m on 21 st November, 2003. What cannot be lost sight of, is the fact that the witnesses, including PW 10 - Navnath, are rustic villagers and cannot be expected to remember with mathematical precision the exact time, considering the sequence of events that took place, from 20th November to 21st November, 2003. It appears from PW 10 - Navnath's evidence, that a few days prior to the incident, Yashoda had come to Laul to complain about Hanmant Gidde (A7) and his family as they were abusing and threatening her and her family; that on 20 th November, 2003, Yashoda again came to Laul and complained about Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others, pursuant to which, Navnath (PW 10) went to drop her at Sapatane and thereafter went to Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house and prayed for an apology; that on the way back, Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others assaulted Navnath; that pursuant to the said assault of 20 th November, 2003, Navnath went to Kurduwadi Police Station on 21 st November, 2003 at 7.00 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 34/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc a.m., and lodged a complaint as against Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others, pursuant to which he visited the hospital with a yadi; that on his return to Laul, he and his brothers; Navnath, Machindra, Tanaji and brother-in-law - Santosh Bedge set out to attend the marriage of Satish Gholap's daughter; that on the way they decided to go to Yashoda's house; that after visiting Yashoda's house, Navnath asked his brothers to visit Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house to settle the dispute, pursuant to which all of them went towards Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house; that on the way they saw all the accused on the Laul-Sapatane road, armed with weapons like swords, sickles, axe, iron rods and sticks; that Hanmant Gidde (A7) asked Navnath why he had brought his brothers; that all the accused assaulted them; that in the assault Machindra and Tanaji received serious injuries; that Machindra and Tanaji were initially taken to Dr.Wagle's Hospital and thereafter to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur; that both, Machindra and Tanaji, were in an unconscious condition when they were admitted in the hospital; that the doctors from S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, informed the police, pursuant to which, the police came and recorded the statement ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 35/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc of Navnath, pursuant to which FIR was lodged. It is pertinent to note, that although an omission was brought on record that Navnath had not disclosed in the FIR regarding the earlier incident of 20th November, 2003, nothing turns on the same, as the fact remains, that Navnath was assaulted in an incident which took place on 20th November, 2003 at 9.30 p.m., and had received injuries in the said incident. Infact, even according to the defence, some incident had taken place on 20 th November, 2003, although not concerning them, pursuant to which Navnath had gone to the hospital. DW 1-Dr. Mukutrao's evidence does not appear to be clear and cogent, considering the answers elicited in his cross-examination, i.e. difference in handwriting in the MLC register, overwriting in the MLC Register, etc. Thus, merely because DW 1-Dr. Mukutrao has stated the time recorded on the Certificate as 10:30 a.m on 21 st November, 2003, it does not mean that Navnath was not present at the spot on 21st November, 2003, at around 11:00 a.m, when the incident took place at Sapatane. The distance between Kurduwadi-Laul, Laul-Sapatane is a few kilometers and on motorcycle, time taken would not be much. Infact, a perusal of Machindra and Tanaji's ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 36/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc medical record shows that the history of the incident given was of 11.00 to 11.30 a.m., on 21st November, 2003, and as such, the same leads credence to the fact, that the incident took place at 11:00 - 11:30 a.m. The evidence of PW 7 - Dr.Shaikh and PW 9 - Dr.Ingale fortifies the said fact. We, thus, find Navnath's evidence to be credible and trustworthy, unshattered in the grueling cross-examination. Considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that PW 10-Navnath, was present at the spot, at the time of the incident and that there is no reason to disbelieve his presence.
22. PW 10-Navnath's evidence has been amply corroborated by PW 5-Tanaji. PW 5 - Tanaji has deposed on similar lines i.e. with regard to the family members; about Yashoda and her husband living in Sapatane village; that prior to the date of the incident, Yashoda and her husband were working as yearly labourers in the field of Hanmant Gidde (A7); that his sister had purchased two acres of land at Sapatane village and hence she and her husband were working in their own field and had stopped working in the field of Gidde; that as Yashoda and ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 37/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc her husband had stopped working in Gidde's field, Hanmant (A7) and others were abusing them; that five to six days prior to the date of the incident, Yashoda had come to Laul and disclosed that Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others had abused her and her husband as they had stopped working in their field; that on 20 th November, 2003, at about 8.00 a.m. Yashoda came to Laul and disclosed that Gidde and his persons were harassing her; that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m., Navnath (PW 10) took Yashoda to Sapatane; that after Navnath dropped his sister at Sapatane, Navnath returned back to Laul and disclosed to them, that he had gone to Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house and prayed for an apology, as Yashoda had stopped working in his field, pursuant to which, Hanmant Gidde, (A7) and others had assaulted him.
23. According to PW 5-Tanaji on 21st November, 2003, Satish Gholap's daughter was getting married at Kuranwadi. He has stated that before going for the marriage, he, Machindra, Navnath, Babasaheb Garad and Santosh Bedge decided to go to Sapatane, to their sister's house. He has stated that they went there at about 11.00 to 11.30 a.m.; and that after visiting his ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 38/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc sister, they met Pandurang Randive and Satish Auchar. He has stated that after talking to them, Navnath asked them to visit Hanmant Gidde's (A.7's) house and ask for an apology, as he was harassing Yashoda and her husband. Pursuant thereto, all of them i.e. Tanaji, Machindra, Navnath, Babasaheb and Santosh Bedge went towards Hanumant Gidde's house. He has stated that Hanmant Gidde (A7), Balaji Gidde (A8), Mahadeo Gidde (A1), Dattatraya Gidde (A9), Yuvraj Raut (A.12), Baban @ Suryabhan Ubale (A11), Kisan Raut (A2), Sarjerao Raut (A3), Ganpat Sarde (A4), Tukaram Sarde (A14), Suresh Sarde (A5), Hanmant Laad (A10), Shanta Gidde (A6), Bibhishan Raut (A13) and Shobha Raut, (A15), were sitting on the Laul-Sapatane road and at that time Hanmant Gidde (A7) asked them why they had come there. He has stated that Hanmant Gidde (A7) assaulted Machindra with a sword on his head and Yuvraj (A12) assaulted Machindra with a sickle on his legs; Balaji Gidde (A8) gave a sickle blow on his (Tanaji) head; Kisan Raut assaulted him with a sword on his head; Bibhishan Raut (A13) assaulted him with an axe on his right leg and left hand and Hanmant Laad (A10) gave a sickle blow, which landed on Santosh Bedge's ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 39/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc chin. He has stated that Navnath requested the accused not to assault Machindra and fell on his person, pursuant to which, Mahadeo (A1) assaulted Navnath with an iron rod. Suresh Sarde (A5) is also alleged to have assaulted Navnath with an iron rod. Ganpat Sarde (A4), Tukaram (A14) and Sarjerao Raut (A3) are stated to have been armed with sticks and are stated to have assaulted Navnath. After hearing hue and cry, Yashoda is stated to have come to the spot, pursuant to which, the accused left the spot. He has further stated that thereafter, he and Machindra were carried on a motorcycle to Kurduwadi, after which he became unconscious. According to Tanaji, he regained consciousness only in S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, on 24th November, 2003. He has stated that he was admitted in S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, for 14 days. Tanaji has identified the clothes (articles - 17 and 18) worn by him on the day of the assault. Tanaji has stated that Machindra was also admitted to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, however, he expired on 29th November, 2003. Tanaji has identified the weapons i.e. stick, iron rod, sickle, sword i.e. articles 23, 24, 26 to 30 and 31 to 35. He has also identified the accused in the ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 40/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Court.
24. Tanaji has in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion, that he was falsely deposing that he became unconscious while proceeding to Kurduwadi; that he was carried to S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, by Raju, Shrikant and Aiyaz; that Raju, Shrikant and Aiyaz were present at the spot of the incident; and that he became unconscious while proceeding towards Solapur from Kurduwadi. According to Tanaji, his statement was recorded on 28 th November, 2003 and supplementary statement on 5th December, 2003. An omission was brought on record that he had not stated in the statement before the police that he became unconscious at Kurduwadi.
25. It has further came in Tanaji's cross-examination, that prior to the incident of 21 st November, 2003, he had not visited Hanmant Gidde's house (A7's); that no quarrel had taken place between them; that prior to the date of the incident, no cases were pending between him and his brothers on the one hand and Hanmant Gidde (A7) on the other; that till his sister was ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 41/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc working in the field of Gidde, there was no complaint made by Yashoda against Hanmant Gidde (A7); and that Hanmant Gidde (A7) had not lodged any oral or written complaint against him or his brothers and that there were no strained relations between him and the appellants. Tanaji has admitted that he had gone to Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house to pray for an apology and to request them not to harass their sister, pursuant to which, the incident took place and that they were not aware that the accused would attack them, as there was no quarrel between them and the accused. He has also admitted that he did not know the reason why the other accused, except Hanmant Gidde (A7) had assaulted them. He has also admitted that Hanmant Gidde (A7) was the Sarpanch of village Sapatane and that the grievance of his sister Yashoda was, that as she had stopped working in the field of Hanmant Gidde (A7), he was harassing her. It was also sought to be suggested that there was some dispute between two MLAs and that Hanmant Gidde (A7) belonged to one group and hence at the instance of the other MLA, a false complaint was lodged as against Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others. An omission was also brought on record with ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 42/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc regard to the disclosure made by Navnath to him, regarding the incident, which took place on the previous day. According to Tanaji, on 21st November, 2003 at about 6.00 a.m., he woke up from sleep, and was not aware as to where Navnath had gone after 6.00 a.m., on that day. He has denied the suggestion that after 6.00 a.m., of 21st November, 2003, Navnath had not met him, till he regained consciousness in S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur. He has stated that he was not aware, whether Navnath had gone to Kurduwadi Police Station at 7.00 a.m. and whether he was at the Primary Health Centre, Kurduwadi upto 10.00 a.m. He has admitted that they went to Sapatane on the motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing that he went to Sapatane at 11.00 to 11.30 am and not at 10.30 a.m. He has stated that it is incorrectly mentioned in his statement that they went to Sapatane at 10.30 a.m. Certain omissions were also brought on record. A suggestion was also made to the said witness, that one day prior to the date of the incident, at about 9.30 p.m. the villagers of Sapatane assaulted Navnath on the Bhosare- Ghatane road, as he had consumed liquor and was abusing the ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 43/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc villagers; and due to the said assault on Navnath by the Sapatane villagers, Machindra (deceased) got annoyed and carried 40 to 50 people from Villages-Laul, Bhosare and Ghatane, on motorcycles and jeep to Sapatane; that all the said persons pelted stones on the house of the Sarpanch and attacked his house; that due to stone pelting, the teachers and students from the school and passers-by on the road rushed to the spot of incident and rescued the Sarpanch and his family members; that the teachers and students and passer-by's counter attacked and forced them to run away from the spot; that in the said incident some villagers from Sapatane and some persons from complainant's side sustained injuries. The suggestion that at the time of the incident, Navnath was not present at the spot was denied by Tanaji. He has denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing that Navnath had taken him on the motorcycle. He has stated that Navnath was present with him, when he was taken to the Primary Health Centre at Kurduwadi.
26. The evidence of this witness was also assailed by ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 44/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Mr.Gupte, learned senior counsel for the appellants on several counts. As noted earlier, several suggestions were made to the said witness to show the possibility of somebody else assaulting him and the deceased - Machindra, however, despite a grueling cross-examination, Tanaji's evidence has remained unshaken. Infact, there is nothing in the cross to discredit the testimony of this witness. A perusal of the evidence of PW 5-Tanaji shows that there was absolutely no reason for him to falsely implicate any of the appellant-accused. As has even come in the cross examination of this witness, there were no inimical or hostile relations between them and Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others.
27. It is pertinent to note, that Hanmant Gidde (A7) was the Sarpanch of village - Sapatane. As has come in the evidence of Tanaji and Navath, their sister Yashoda and her husband, a resident of Sapatane were being harassed by Hanmant Gidde (A7) and his family, as Yashoda and her husband had stopped working for them in their field. A grievance to that effect was also made by Yashoda and her husband to her brothers i.e. Tanaji, Navnath and Machindra. From the evidence on record, it ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 45/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc appears, that on the previous day i.e. 20 th November, 2003, Navnath had gone to Sapatane and prayed for an apology from Hanmant Gidde (A7), however, he was abused and assaulted by Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others, pursuant to which, Navnath went to the police station on the next day and lodged a complaint. As noted earlier, although an omission was brought on record, regarding non-disclosure of the incident of 20 th November, 2003 in Tanaji's police statement, the fact remains that some incident had taken place on 20 th November, 2003, even according to the appellant-accused, though they were not concerned with the same. Although much ado, was made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, with regard to the presence of Navnath at the spot of incident, as noted earlier, there is no manner of doubt, that Navnath was present at the spot, when the incident of assault took place. Tanaji's evidence also fortifies, Navnath's presence at the spot. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that the witnesses are rustic villagers, who cannot be expected to state with precision, the exact timings. An hour here or there, would not make much difference, if the facts and sequence of events are borne in mind. What is ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 46/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc pertinent to note, is that there was no animosity which has come on record for the eye-witnesses i.e. Tanaji and Navnath, to falsely implicate the appellant-accused. Infact, some of the suggestions are contrary to each other. It is also pertinent to note, that admittedly the complainant's side were not armed with any weapons, when they went to Sapatane to meet their sister and thereafter to Hanmant Gidde's (A7's) house, to pray for an apology. It is neither the defence's case, that Tanaji, Machindra and others were the aggressors, and that in exercise of their right to private defence, they assaulted Tanaji, Machindra and others. The case put up by the appellant-accused also appears to be too far fetched i.e. that Machindra had carried several villagers with him to village Sapatane and had started pelting stones on the house of Hanmant Gidde (A7), pursuant to which the villagers, teachers, students and passer-by, counter attacked and in the said attack, Machindra and others sustained injuries. We do not find any merit in the said defence. No evidence has been adduced by the defence in support of the same. The appellant-accused have not denied their presence at the spot nor are they stated to have received any injuries in the said ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 47/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc incident. The testimony of both, PW 5-Tanaji and PW 10-Navnath appears to be natural, credible and trustworthy. Merely because Navnath's injury certificate is not placed on record, would not in anyway create a dent in the prosecution case. Infact, even according to Navnath, he had not received any visible injuries in the incident of assault on 21st November, 2003. Apart from the aforesaid, the complaint has also been promptly lodged, leaving no room for any suspicion/doubt.
28. Although, Mr.Gupte vehemently urged that the prosecution case is doubtful, as no independent witness/es, have been examined by the prosecution and that the only witnesses examined were, related and interested witnesses i.e. Navnath (PW 10) and Tanaji (PW 5), we do not find any merit in the said submission. On the question of related/interested witnesses, the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar v/s State of U.P. and Others2 has observed as under;
"12. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given 2 (2010) 7 SCC 759 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 48/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry', this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23-24)
23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautions in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.
24. ........
13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v.
State of U.P. where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.
14. In the light of the above judgments, it is clear that the statements of the alleged interested witnesses can be ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 49/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc safely relied upon by the court in support of the prosecution's story. But this needs to be done with care and to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not undermined by the persons, who are closely related to the deceased. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses expert evidence and the circumstances of the case clearly depict completion of the chain of evidence pointing out to the guilt of the accused, then we see no reason why the statement of so-called "interested witnesses" cannot be relied upon by the court."
In Seeman alias Veeranam vs. State, by Inspector of Police3, the Supreme Court in paragraph 4 observed thus:
4. "It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is an interested witness. Caution is to be applied by the court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested sole witness.
The prosecution's non - production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement." In Dalip Singh and Others v/s State of Punjab 4 the Apex 3 2005 Cri.LJ 2618 4 [1954] 1 SCR 145 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 50/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Court, has observed as under:-
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that here is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
(emphasis supplied) The Court, no doubt, uttered a word of caution:
"However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
(emphasis supplied) In Darya Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 5, the Apex Court held that evidence of an eye witness who is a near relative of the victim, should be closely scrutinized but no corroboration is necessary for acceptance of his evidence.
Speaking for the Court, Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship then was) in para 6 has observed as under:
5 AIR (1965) SC 328
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 :::
51/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
"6. There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal Courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. But a person may be interested in the victim, being his relation or otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to the accused. In that case, the fact that the witness was related to the victim or was his friend, may not necessarily introduce any infirmity in his evidence. But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal Court to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, Courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance-witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence. If the offence has taken place as in the present case, in front of the house of the victim, the fact that on hearing his shouts, his relations rushed out of the house cannot be ruled out as being improbable, and so, the presence of the three eye-witnesses cannot be properly characterised as unlikely. If the criminal Court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance-witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised. In doing so, it may be relevant to remember that though the witness is hostile to the assailant, it is not likely that he would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may name the real assailant and may add other persons out of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 52/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars....."
(emphasis supplied) In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar6, the Apex Court considered several leading cases on the point and observed in para 6 as under:-
"6. On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes out that there has been no departure from the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar's case, AIR 1957 SC 614 (supra) and, therefore, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eye-witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye-witness being present. Indeed, the Courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence."
(emphasis supplied) In Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana 7, the Apex Court observed in para 7 as under:-
"7. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused....."
29. Considering the aforesaid settled legal position, it is clear that a close relative cannot as a general rule be 6 1996 Cri.L.J.889 7 2005 Cri.L.J. 2199 ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 53/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc characterised as an 'interested' witness. A close relative can be a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based even on the 'sole' testimony of such a witness. Mere close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. It is the quality of the evidence of such a witness, which needs to be borne in mind, before his evidence is accepted.
30. In the facts of the present case, having considered the evidence of Navnath (PW 10) and Tanaji (PW 5), we find their evidence to be credible, reliable and trustworthy. As far as PW 5
- Tanaji is concerned, he is an injured eye witness. His evidence inspires confidence. Both Tanaji's and Navnath's evidence is consistent with other. Merely, because Navnath's injury certificate is not placed on record, does not mean that Navnath was not present at the spot. Infact, according to Navnath, ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 54/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc although he was assaulted while trying to save Machindra, he had not received any visible injuries. The complaint was promptly lodged by Navnath, leaving no scope for any doubt/suspicion. Although, both these witnesses were cross- examined at length, nothing material is elicited in their cross- examination, to discredit their testimony. The omissions on record are not material omissions, and as such, do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case.
31. The medical evidence also corroborates the occular evidence. PW 7 - Dr.Anwar Moulali Shaikh, RMO, S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, first examined deceased-Machindra and Tanaji on 21st November, 2003 at about 2.00 p.m. He has stated that Tanaji and Machindra were admitted to the hospital; that he examined Machindra; that Machindra was admitted by one Bapu Zambare; that Navnath (PW 10), the brother of the patient (Machindra) had also accompanied the patient; that when Machindra was admitted to the hospital, he was in an unconscious state and that he was gasping for breath. He has stated that on examination he found the following injuries on his ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:50:59 ::: 55/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc person;
- CLW over left chin and over right leg 5 cm above right ankle on anterior aspect.
- Abrasion over big toe, 3rd toe and right leg.
- CLW over left parietal region about 3 finger breadth.
- Fracture left middle finger first phalanx with swelling of index and middle fingers.
- There was bleeding from nostrils and left ear.
32. He has stated that the C.T.Scan revealed soft tissue swelling over right parietal region; that Extraaxial hyperdense lesion was noted over fronto-parietal convexity seen compressing parenchyma right lateral ventricle with midline shift, subfalcine herniation to left side s/o subdural hematoma (SDH); Hyper densities were seen along left sylvian fissure and cortical sulci in left parietal region suggestive of subarachnoid hemorrhage; and that the bone window revealed fractures involving the left parietal region.
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 :::
56/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
33. PW 7-Dr.Anwar Shaikh has placed the injury certificate of Machindra on record. The same is at Exhibit - 43. He has stated that on 29th November, 2003, Machindra died in the hospital and that during the period from 21 st November to 29th November, 2003, the condition of the patient was serious and that he was unconscious; that he had sustained a CLW on the chin and over the right leg above the right ankle; that the said injuries were possible by sickle; and that the CLW injury on the left parietal region was possible by sword. He has stated that the head injury was on the vital part of the body and that the head injury in the ordinary course of nature were sufficient to cause death. According to PW 7 the injuries were possible by weapons i.e. articles 25 to 30.
34. In the cross-examination, PW 7 - Dr.Shaikh has admitted that the patient was admitted to the hospital at about 2.45 p.m. and that the history was given by one Bapu Zambare. He has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly deposed that the patient was brought to the hospital by his brother - Navnath. He has also admitted that except the head injury and CLW over ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 57/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc the left chin, the other injuries on the person of Machindra, were not on vital parts of the body. He has stated that the only treatment which was available in the case of Machindra was life supporting treatment. He has admitted that if proper treatment was given, the fracture involving left parietal region, could be healed automatically. We may note here, that it is recorded in the injury certificate, Exhibit - 43 that Machindra, aged 22 years was brought by the relatives, stating history of alleged assault on 21st November, 2003 at about 11.00 a.m; that he was unconscious and was gasping for respiration. The discharge summary card paper, which is at Exhibit-44 of S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur also shows, that Machindra was admitted on 21st November, 2003 at about 2.45 p.m.; that the informant was Bapu Zambre; that the patient was brought by the relatives on 21st November, 2003 at 2.00 p.m. with history of alleged assault at about 11.00 a.m. on the day of admission; that he was on life support treatment for eight days i.e. till 29 th November, 2003; that there was no change in his clinical status; that on 29th November, 2003 at 10.00 p.m. he developed bradycardia, hypotension and cardiac arrest and died. The said ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 58/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc medical case papers also show that the incident had taken place at around 11.00 a.m. and not 10.00 a.m., as is sought to be suggested by the appellants, in order to create a doubt with regard to Navnath's presence, at the spot.
35. PW 8-Dr.Suryakant Baburao Kamble, conducted the postmortem of Machindra on 30th November, 2003. He has stated that on external examination, he found seven injuries I.e.;
1. Sutured wound over left parietal region 2 ½" X ½".
2. Sutured wound over left temporoparietal region 1" X 1".
3. Linear abrasion over Rt.leg middle part 3" X 1".
Blackish with crush formation.
4. Abrasions over great toe, 2 nd toe and third toe, Rt.foot ½" X ½" each superficial with crush formation blackish.
5. Healed C.L.W over Rt.Leg near ankle region, near ankle region blackish 3" X ½" .
6. Healed C.L.W. Over left leg over middle region 4" X 2" blackish.
7. C.L.W. with fracture middle finger terminal aspect left hand.
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 :::
59/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc On internal examination, he noted the following injuries;
1. C.L.W. left parietal region with haematoma 2 ½" X ½".
2. C.L.W. left temporoparietal region 1" X 1" with haematoma.
Fracture left parietal bone extending upto Rt.parietal bone transversly crack type linear 3" X ½" .
Subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage with multiple blackish blood clots all over brain surface. Blood clots also present in both the lateral ventricles of cerebral cortex, blackish cerebral cortex soft creamy.
36. PW 8-Dr.Kamble opined that the probable cause of death was 'head injury'. He accordingly prepared P.M. notes. The said P.M. notes are at Exhibit-46. He has stated that the injuries mentioned in column no.17 correspond with the injuries mentioned in column no.19 and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that all the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death. He has stated that the said injuries mentioned in column no.17 at serial nos.1 and 2 correspond with the injuries in column no.19 (1) and 2) and were ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 60/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc possible by sword and the injuries mentioned at serial nos. 5 to 7 in column no.17 were possible by sword or sharp weapon.
37. Dr.Kamble has in his cross-examination admitted that the fracture on the head could be healed by life supporting treatment and that in such cases there are high chances of survival. He has also admitted that injuries nos.(i) and (ii) mentioned in column no.19, alongwith fracture of parietal bone may be possible by hard and blunt object and so also injuries nos.5 and 6 mentioned in column no.17.
38. PW 9-Dr.Pravin Vishnupant Ingale examined Tanaji (PW 5). According to PW 9-Dr.Ingale, he was working as RMO at S.P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur. He has stated that on 21st November, 2003, Tanaji was admitted to the hospital at 2.40 to 2.50 p.m.; and that Navnath (PW 10) was the informant. He has stated that Navnath gave history of incident to him, when the patient was admitted to the hospital. He has stated that on examination, he found that Tanaji was unconscious and was not responding to verbal commands; that his left pupil was dialated ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 61/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc and unreactive; that his right pupil was reactive, purposive movement of left arm to pain; that there was bleeding from left ear and swelling over the right arm; that his hair were matted with blood, that there was CLW over left thumb and that there was injury to his head. He has stated that C.T. Scan of the patient was done and that the C.T. Scan report revealed Extraaxial hyperdense lesion with convex margin over the left parietal convexity-extradural haematoma. Left occipital haemorrhagic contusion, fracture left temporal and both parietal bones. He has produced the injury certificate of Tanaji, which is at Exhibit - 49. He has stated that on 21 st November, 2003 at night, Tanaji was operated and that he regained consciousness only on 24th November, 2003 and thereafter he was discharged on 4th December, 2003. According to PW 9-Dr.Ingale, the CLW over the left thumb is possible by axe; and that the head injury is possible by Sattur, sickle or sword. He has stated that the head injury was on the vital part of the body and that the head injury was sufficient to cause death, if the patient was not operated immediately. A perusal of the case papers shows that Navnath Garad (PW 10) was the informant, and that it was ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 62/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Navnath who had given history of assault at about 10.30/11.00 a.m. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness, that it was Navnath who admitted Tanaji to the hospital. The injury certificate also reveals that the history of assault, given was at about 11.00 a.m. Considering the occular evidence, which is corroborated by the medical evidence on record, we find that PW 5-Tanaji and Machindra (deceased) had sustained injuries in the assault which took place on 21 st November, 2003. It is also pertinent to note that blood was found at the spot where the incident took place. As noted earlier, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant's side were armed. On the contrary, what is evident is that the deceased and injured had gone to tender an apology and were assaulted by the appellants. It is pertinent to note, that the appellants have not denied nor disputed their presence at the spot, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither any cross case has been filed by the appellants against the complainant and the injured. Nor is it a case, where any of the appellants are stated to have been injured, in the said incident.
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 :::
63/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
39. Mr.Gupte also relied on the evidence of DW 2 - Dr.Mohite, in support of his submission to show that the prosecution had deliberately not examined Santosh Bedge, though he was allegedly present at the spot and had received injuries. The evidence of DW 2-Dr.Ramchandra Maruti Mohite, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Madha shows that on the day of the incident i.e. 21st November, 2003, he was attached to the said Primary Health Centre. He has stated that on that day, Santosh Balu Bedge had came to the PHC, Madha, along with a police yadi and that he had noticed one CLW injury on the left side of the face. He has stated that the injury was simple in nature and was caused by a hard and sharp object. He has stated that he examined him and accordingly issued an injury certificate at Exhibit - 105.
40. According to Mr.Gupte, the reason for not examining Santosh Bedge, was to suppress the true facts. According to Mr. Gupte, Santosh Bedge had lodged a complaint with the Madha Police Station, prior to the FIR lodged at the instance of Navnath and that the same has been suppressed by the prosecution. We ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 64/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc find no merit in the said submission, as it was always open for the defence to bring on record the said complaint or examine any Officer from the said Police Station. Nothing turns on the non-examination of Santosh Bedge, by the prosecution. Ultimately, even Santosh Bedge was a close relative of the deceased and injured. As noted earlier, it is not the quantity but quality of evidence that is important.
41. The question that then arises for consideration in the facts of this case, is whether the conviction awarded to some of the appellants under Section 302 r/w 149 of the I.P.C and some under Section 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. is justified and whether the sentences awarded to the appellants for the offences appropriate.
42. In the present case, charge was framed against the appellant - accused for various offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 504 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As noted earlier in para 2, all the appellant-accused were convicted ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 65/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc for the offences punishable, under Sections 147 r/w 149 of I.P.C and under Sections 148 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. however, some of the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C; and some for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C ; and some for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C and under Section 323 r/w 149 of I.P.C.
43. From the evidence on record, the common object of the unlawful assembly will have to be ascertained. Section 147 of the I.P.C is the penalizing section for the offence which is defined under Section 146 of I.P.C. As soon as the force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, the offence of rioting would be complete. Infact, the common object of the unlawful assembly would have to be inferred from the conduct of the members of the unlawful assembly. From the evidence on record, it appears that there was some dispute between Hanmant Gidde and Yashoda (Navnath, Machindra and Tanaji's sister) and that Yashoda had disclosed to her brothers ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 66/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc about the threats and assault on her and her husband by Hanmant Gidde (A7). Pursuant thereto, Navnath had gone to Sapatane on the previous day i.e. on 20 th November, 2003 to Hanmant Gidde's (A7) house to settle the dispute. On the next day, i.e. on 21st November, 2003, PW 5 - Tanaji, PW 10 - Navnath, Machindra (deceased) and Santosh Bedge had gone to Sapatane first to Yashoda's house and thereafter to Hanmant Gidde's (A7) house, at the instance of PW 10 - Navnath, to settle the dispute and seek an apology. It appears that when they reached towards Hanmant Gidde's vasti, Hanmant Gidde (A7) and other named persons came towards them. They were armed with axes, sickles, swords, iron rods and sticks. Hanmant Gidde (A7) questioned Navnath (PW 10) and asked him, whether he had brought his brothers and brother-in-law to assault him and uttered the words 'Aayee Ghalya' ( vkbZ ?kkY;k), and pursuant thereto, assaulted Machindra with a sword on his head. The other co-accused also started assaulting the deceased and others. It appears from the evidence on record, that the object of unlawful assembly was to cause hurt. It may be noted, that Navnath (PW 10) had come on the previous day to the village of ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 67/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc the accused, as Hanmant Gidde (A7) had assaulted his sister; that on the said day, Navnath was assaulted by Hanmant and others; that on the next day, Navnath (PW 10) had again returned to the village, with his brothers and brother-in-law and hence the accused apprehended that they had come to assault them and hence in this background, the common object of the unlawful assembly was to repulse the apprehended assault, by causing hurt to Tanaji and the persons accompanying him. Admittedly, there was no animosity or dispute between Machindra and Tanaji on one hand and the appellant-accused on the other. It also appears from the evidence, that most of the appellant-accused had not actually assaulted the deceased- Machindra and Tanaji nor had aided Hanmant Gidde (A7) in mounting assault on deceased - Machindra and Tanaji. It appears from the evidence of PW 10 - Navnath, that Hanmant Gidde (A7) assaulted Machindra with a sword on his head and that Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) assaulted Machindra and Tanaji with swords and sticks on their hands and legs, whereas, from the evidence of PW 5 - Tanaji, it appears that Hanmant Gidde (A7) assaulted Machindra with a sword on ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 68/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc his head and Yuvraj (A12) gave a blow with a sickle on Machindra's legs. The medical evidence shows the cause of death as 'head injury'. It is the head injury which turned out to be fatal. The injury certificate of Machindra shows that he had sustained 4 injuries, i.e. CLW on the head, CLW over left chin and over right leg above ankle, abrasion on toes and right leg and fracture of left middle finger. It is not the case of the prosecution, that any of these accused, including Hanmant Gidde assaulted Machindra more than once.
44. It may be noted that Section 149 of I.P.C. is divided into two parts and that the same are not to be read in the alternative, but in conjunction with each other. In the first part of Section 149, if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or such act, the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object every person who at the time of committing of that offence is a member of the same assembly and as such would be guilty of the said offence. In the second part of Section 149 of I.P.C. knowledge of the ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 69/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc members of the unlawful assembly that any member of the said assembly may commit a particular act is necessary.
45. In the facts of this case, admittedly there is nothing on record to show, that the appellants had any animosity, ill-will against the injured-Tanaji and the deceased-Machindra, so as to cause Machindra's death. In the absence of any cogent, evidence in that behalf, it would be difficult to hold that all the members of the unlawful assembly had the requisite knowledge that some of the accused were likely to assault the deceased - Machindra and injure Tanaji, in a manner which would result in Machindra's death and seriously injure Tanaji. From the acts/role played by some of the appellant- accused, it appears that the object of the unlawful assembly was to cause hurt and that they all came together and that some of them assaulted Machindra (deceased) and Tanaji. The evidence on record shows that Hanmant Gidde (A7) was abusing and threatening Yashoda and hence Machindra, Tanaji, Navnath and Santosh had gone to Hanmant Gidde (A7's) house to pray for an apology; that Hanmant Gidde (A7) and others ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 70/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc came towards them; Hanmant Gidde questioned the complainant whether he had got his brothers to assault him and assaulted Machindra with a sword on his head. The other co- accused i.e Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) assaulted Machindra on his hands and legs. A perusal of the medical certificate/postmortem report shows, that the fatal injury, was the head injury caused by Hanmant Gidde (A7). The injuries caused by Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) are not on any vital part of the body. Machindra was unconscious from the time of his assault till he succumbed to the injuries on 29 th November, 2003. None of the appellants are stated to have assaulted Machindra or Tanaji more than once. Infact, when Machindra was assaulted, Navnath and Santosh fell on his person, pursuant to which they too were assaulted. Admittedly, neither Navnath nor Santosh are stated to have received any grievous injuries. On the contrary, the injuries sustained by Navnath were not even visible. It thus appears that the common object of the members of the unlawful assembly, was to cause hurt. The medical evidence also shows that except one injury on Machindra's head, none of the other 3 injuries were on the vital ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 71/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc parts of the body nor were they serious/grievous. It can thus be inferred, that the acts done by some members of the unlawful assembly were different from the common object of the said assembly and were of such a nature as the members of the assembly could not have known to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. We may note, that the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly would certainly be a relevant factor. In the case in hand, the common object of the assembly is not discernible. In the facts, it can be held that the principal offender Hanmant Gidde (A7) intended to cause grievous injury on the deceased - Machindra and in furtherance of the same, assaulted Machindra on his head with a sword. It appears that no further attempt was made by Hanmant Gidde (A7), though he had the opportunity to do so. Merely because other members of the unlawful assembly i.e. Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) were armed with swords and sticks, it cannot be said that they shared the common object with Hanmant Gidde (A7), vis-a-vis assault on Machindra, more so, in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution in that behalf.
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 :::
72/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc
46. In the case of Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre and Others v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 773, specific overt acts of the accused persons who had caused death was distinguished from the act of the persons against whom there were general allegations. In the said case, the Apex Court in paragraph 72 observed thus:-
72 ".....It is well known that for determination of common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly before and at the time of attack is of relevant consideration. At a particular stage of the incident, what is object of the unlawful assembly is a question of fact and that has to be determined keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of incident."
47. As noted earlier, and as is evident from the evidence of the eye-witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, that it was Hanmant Gidde (A7), who assaulted Machindra on his head, whereas, some of the appellant-accused assaulted Machindra on his hands and legs and some of the accused assaulted the complainant and Santosh Bedge, when they fell on Machindra's body, to save him. As noted earlier, Navnath had sustained no visible injuries. From the injuries (except head injury) sustained ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 73/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc by Machindra and Tanaji, it was evident that the object of the unlawful assembly was to cause hurt. It is also evident, that it was Hanmant Gidde (A7) alone who assaulted Machindra on his head with a sword, which injury turned out to be a fatal injury. As a result of the blow, Machindra became unconscious and ultimately succumbed to the said injury on 29th November, 2003. The weapon carried by Hanmant Gidde (A7) and the situs of the body chosen by him clearly indicates that it was his intention to cause grievous hurt. As stated earlier, it appears from the evidence, that there was no real animosity between Hanmant Gidde (A7) and Machindra, for Hanmant Gidde to cause his death. Similarly, Machindra's injury certificate/postmortem report does not show that Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) had assaulted Machindra on any vital part of the body. It is evident from the medical certificate/ postmortem report of Machindra, that apart from the head injury, the other injuries were on his toes and fingers. The acts of Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) were in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly i.e. of causing hurt. It thus appears that the unlawful assembly was formed on the spur of moment, at ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 74/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc the behest of Hanmant Gidde (A7) only when they saw Machindra and others coming towards them. From the individual acts of each of the members it can safely be inferred that they had not shared the intention and knowledge of Hanmant Gidde (A7) vis-a-vis assault on Machindra, which he alone reduced into action, by giving a blow on Machindra's head. As noted earlier, no further attempt was made to assault either Machindra or Tanaji or Navnath.
48. In the facts, we are of the opinion that only Hanmant Gidde (A7) would be liable for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and as such his conviction under Section 302 r/w 149 requires to be set aside. As far as Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) are concerned, it is difficult to uphold their conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. r/w 149 of I.P.C. Instead, considering their role, they would be liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. alongwith other co-accused.
49. As far as assault on Tanaji (PW 5) is concerned, the ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 75/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc evidence of PW 10 - Navnath and PW 5 - Tanaji is consistent with respect to the fact, that it was Balaji (A8) who gave a sickle blow on Tanaji's head, whereas, Bibhishan (A13) assaulted Tanaji with an axe on his hand and leg. According to PW 5 - Tanaji, Kisan (A2) also assaulted him with a sword on his head, whereas, according to PW 10 - Navnath, it was Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) who assaulted Tanaji with swords and sticks on his hand and leg. It is pertinent to note, that Tanaji has not spelt out or disclosed the names of Yuvraj (A12) and Ganpat (A4), as having assaulted him. Hence, considering the evidence on record, in particular, the evidence of PW 5 - Tanaji, the injured witness himself, we are of the opinion that it was Balaji (A8) and Kisan (A2), who assaulted him with a sickle and sword on his head and that Bibhishan (A13) assaulted him with an axe on his leg and hand. The injuries caused by Balaji (A8), Kisan (A2) and Bibhishan (A13) are consistent with the medical evidence on record. The medical evidence of PW 9 - Dr.Ingale shows that Tanaji was in hospital for 14 days; that he was brought unconscious to the hospital and regained consciousness only on 24th November, 2003. In the circumstances, we find ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 76/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc that the conviction recorded by the trial Court of the appellants i.e. Kisan Raut (A2), Ganpat Sarde (A4), Balaji Gidde (A8), Yuvraj Raut (A12), Bibhishan Raut (A13), for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. ought to be set aside. Instead, considering the evidence on record, we find that Balaji (A8) and Kisan (A2) would be liable to be convicted for assaulting Tanaji on his head, with a sickle and sword, under Section 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. As far as appellants, Bibhishan (A13), Yuvraj (A12) and Ganpat (A4) are concerned, they would be liable to be convicted, for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. along with other co-accused. From the acts of these members, it can be inferred that they had not shared the common object of Balaji (A8) and Kisan (A2) vis-a- vis attack on Tanaji i.e. to cause grievous injuries to Tanaji. As far as conviction of all the other accused are concerned, all have been named by the witnesses, and as such, we are of the opinion that there conviction under Section 324 r/w 149 and Section 323 r/w 149 and under Section 147 r/w 149 and 148 r/w 149 of I.P.C, requires to be upheld, however we are of the opinion, that the sentences imposed on them ought to be ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 77/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc modified, keeping in mind, their acts/role. We are also of the opinion, that the sentence imposed on some of the appellant- accused for the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and Section 323 r/w 149 of I.P.C. ought to be reduced and instead propose to enhance the fine amount and award compensation to the injured under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pertinent to note, that the Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh v/s Sukhbir Singh and Others, reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, lamented the failure of the Courts in awarding compensation to the victims in terms of Section 357 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The Court recommended to all Courts to exercise the power available under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. liberally so as to meet the ends of justice. The Court said:
".... Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused... It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 78/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way."
50. Needless to state, that the amount of compensation, would be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case, the nature of the crime, the justness of the claim and the capacity of the accused to pay. As far as capacity to pay fine is concerned, we had heard learned senior counsel, on this point and have accordingly decided to impose fine and award compensation to the wife of deceased-Machindra and to Tanaji, under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to meet the ends of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeals Nos.563 and 603 of 2005 are partly allowed;::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 :::
79/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc (ii) The conviction and sentence of Hanmant Gidde (A7), Yuvraj
Raut (A12), Kisan Raut (A2) and Ganpat Sarde (A4), for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of the I.P.C., is set aside. Instead, we convict Hanmant Gidde (A7) for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C.
and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months, for the death of Machindra. As far as, Yuvraj (A12), Kisan (A2) and Ganpat (A4) are concerned, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the I.P.C and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months, for the assault on Machindra;
(iii) The conviction and sentence of Kisan Raut (A2), Ganpat Sarde (A4), Balaji Gidde (A8), Yuvraj Raut (A12), Bibhishan Raut (A13), for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. is set aside. Instead, we convict Balaji (A8) and Kisan (A2) for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. for the assault on Tanaji, and sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months, for the assault on Tanaji. As far as Yuvraj (A12) and Ganpat (A4), are concerned they are convicted for the ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 80/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. along with the other co-accused and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months, for the assault on Tanaji;
(iv) The conviction and sentence of Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde (A1), Sarjerao Pralhad Raut (A3), Suresh Rajaram Sarde (A5), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde, (A6), Balaji Ganpat Gidde (A8), Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde, (A9), Hanmant Eknath Laad (A10), Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale (A11), Bibhishan Vitthal Raut (A13), Tukaram Rajaram Sarde, (A14) and Shobha Yuvraj Raut, (A15), for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the I.P.C i.e. assault on deceased - Machindra is confirmed. However, their sentences are reduced and modified. The said accused shall now suffer imprisonment of 3 months and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months;
(v) The conviction and sentence of Mahadeo Saudagar Gidde (A1), Sarjerao Pralhad Raut (A3), Suresh Rajaram Sarde (A5), Shantabai Ganpat Gidde, (A6), Hanmant Ganpat Gidde (A7), Dattatraya Saudagar Gidde, (A9) Hanmant Eknath Laad (A10), Suryabhan Bhagwan Ubale (A11), Tukaram Rajaram Sarde (A14) and Shobha Yuvraj Raut, (A15) for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 81/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc 149 of the I.P.C. i.e. for the assault on Tanaji, is confirmed. However, their sentences are reduced and modified. The accused shall now suffer imprisonment of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months;
(vi) The conviction of Mahadeo Gidde (A1), Sarjerao Raut (A3), Suresh Sarde (A5), Shantabai Gidde, (A6), Dattatraya Gidde (A9), Hanmant Laad (A10), Suryabhan Ubale (A11), Tukaram Sarde (A14) and Shobha Raut (A15), for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of I.P.C. i.e. for the assault of Navnath is confirmed. However, their sentences are modified and reduced to undergone sentence.
(vii) The conviction of all the appellants under Section 147 r/w 149 of I.P.C and under Section 148 r/w 149 of I.P.C are maintained;
(viii) The conviction and sentence of Hanmant Gidde (A7), for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the I.P.C, is confirmed.
(All the sentences to run concurrently).
(ix) From the fine amounts so recovered, the trial Court shall pay compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to the wife of the deceased - Machindra and to ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 ::: 82/82 apeal.563&603.2005(F).doc Tanaji, as awarded hereinabove.
(x) The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellants to surrender within 3 weeks.
51. In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Application Nos.1384 and 1385 of 2016, filed by the State seeking cancellation of appellants bail, do not survive and the same are disposed of.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2017 01:51:00 :::