Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari vs State of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2012

7/24/2019 Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari vs State of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2012

1/21

Bombay High CourtGokuldas Rambhau Rangari vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2012Bench: A. H. Joshi, S.S. Jadhav apeal368.06.odt 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2006

With

Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2006 With

Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2006

with

Criminal Appeal No.396 OF 2006

[A] Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2006 :

1. Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari,

Aged about 36 years,

2. Raju Madhukar Baile,


3. Dharmadas @ Dhammanand

Madhukar Baile,


4. Vinayak Shankarrao Sute,

Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2012

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/2137173/ 1


2/21


5. Nilesh Charandas Gaikwad,


6. Vinod Sopan Gaikwad,


7. Deepak Digambar Baile,


8. Dharampal Motiram Sute,


9. Mangesh Gulabrao Gawande,


10. Krushna Sambhaji Murar,


::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:13 :::

apeal368.06.odt 2

11. Panjab Janardhan Alone, (Deleted as per

Aged about 42 years, Court s order dt.

21.9.2006)

12. Prakash Charandas Gaikwad,


13. Shudhodhan Madhukar Baile,




3/21


All R/o Mubarakpur,

Tq. Babhulgaon, District- Yavatmal. .... Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra,

through Police Station Officer,

Police Station, Babhulgaon. .... Respondent

Mr.R.M.Daga, Advocate for Appellant No.1.

Mr.A.K.Choube, Advocate for Appellant No.2.

Mr.M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants No.3 to 13

Mr.T.A.Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-State.

*****

[B] Criminal Appeal No.353 of 2006 :

Rahul s/o Dadarao Ghodeswar,

(Original Accused No.12

before Trial Court),


Occupation: Working as Attorney

with an Advocate at Babhulgaon,




4/21

Dist. Yavatmal, R/o Mubarakpur,

Tq. Babhulgaon,

Dist. Yavatmal, Presently at

Central Prison, Amravati. .... Appellant

Versus

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:13 :::

apeal368.06.odt 3


through P.S.O. Babhulgaon,

Dist. Yavatmal. .... Respondent

Mr.M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.


respondent-State.

*****

[C] Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2006 :

Rajendra s/o Sadhuji Alone,


Occupation: Agriculturist,

R/o Mabarakpur,

Tq. Babhulgaon, Dist. Yavatmal. .... Appellant

Versus




5/21


through P.S.O., P.S. Babhulgaon,

Dist. Yavatmal. .... Respondent

Mr.M.I.Dhatrak, Advocate for Appellant.


respondent-State.

*****

[D] Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2006:

Punjab Janardhan Alone,

Aged 40 years,

Occupation: Labour,

Resident of Meerapur,

Tehsil Babhulgaon,

Districtt: Yavatmal. .... Appellant.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:13 :::

apeal368.06.odt 4

Versus


Through its P.S.O.Babhulgaon,

Distt. Yavatmal. .... Respondent




6/21

Mr.M.M.Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellant.


respondent-State.

*****

CORAM :

ig A.H. JOSHI AND

SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 17th APRIL, 2012.

PRONOUNCED ON : 4th MAY, 2012

JUDGMENT [Per : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV J.]:

1. The appellants herein are challenging their

conviction in Sessions Case No. 19/2003 recorded by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,Yavatmal, by a judgment and order dated 14.6.2006.

2. The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Section:-

(a) 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fineof Rs.500/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 months.

(b) 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fineof Rs.500/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 months.

(c) 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life

and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

(d) 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-

each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 months.

(e) 149 read with Section 341 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-




7/21

each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 months.

3. The case of the prosecution is that :

(a) On 18.12.2002, Vivekanand Alone lodged a report at Babhulgaon Police Station at about 11.30p.m. alleging therein that on 18.12.2002 at about 8 p.m. Gokul Rangari stared taunting and abusing

his father Ramdas Alone who had been to answer nature s call. Vivekanand approached Gokul andobjected his conduct of abusing his father Ramdas. However, Gokul was annoyed and he assaultedVivekanand with an iron tomy bar.

(b) Therefore, Vivekanand along with his parents and brother, hired the auto-rickshaw of oneBhagat and were proceeding towards Babhulgaon Police Station to lodge a report. At about 8.30p.m. near the hutment area, 15 persons (appellants herein) obstructed the said auto-rickshaw. RajuBaile was armed with a spear and assaulted his father Ramdas with the said spear on his chest andright leg. The complainant tried to intervene and sustained an injury on his finger. At the same time,Gokul Rangari assaulted the complainant on his forearm and also his mother with a stick. The restof the accused assaulted the complainant and his mother. At that time, the brother of thecomplainant namely Vidyadhar escaped from the spot. The assailants had attempted to chaseVidhadhar.

His father Ramdas had fallen unconscious. He was carried to the Civil Hospital in the same auto. Atthe hospital, Ramdas was declared dead.

(c) The oral report is at Exh.180. The report reduced into writing in the proforma under Section 154of Criminal Procedure Code is at Exh.181.

On the basis of the report, Crime No. 100 of 2002 was registered at Babhulgaon Police Stationagainst 15 persons for offences ig punishable under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 302 of Indian PenalCode.

(d) The accused were arrested

21.12.2002. An iron tomy bar was recovered fro

accused Gokul Rangari under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Similarly a spear was recoveredat the instance of the accused Raju Baile. The memorandum for the recovery of weapon from GokulRangari is at Exh.227 and the seizure panchanama is at Exh.228. The memorandum for recovery ofspear from Raju Baile is at Exh.226 and the seizure panchanama is at Exh.229. On 20.12.2002, astick was recovered from accused Punjab Alone as per Exh.221. On 19.12.2002 and 20.12.2002, allthe named accused persons were arrested. The investigation was completed and charge sheet wasfiled on 24.2.2003. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused.

4. Discussion as regards testimony of PW1 is as follows:-




8/21

(a) PW1 Vivekanand Alone is the son of deceased Ramdas. He is an eyewitness to the incident.

He was injured in the said incident. He has set the law into motion by filing an oral report toBabhulgaon Police Station which is at Exh.180. PW1 has deposed before the Court that on18.12.2002 at about 8 p.m., his father was on his way to answer nature s call.

Gokul Rangari taunted him. Therefore, he and his father gave an understanding to Gokul. At thattime, Gokul assaulted him with an iron tomy bar. Father and son returned home. His father went tothe house of Premdas Bhagat to get the auto-rickshaw.

(b) Thereafter the complainant, his parents and brother boarded the rickshaw to go to BabhulgaonPolice Station for lodging the report. Near the hutment, 10 to 15 persons obstructed the auto.

Immediately Raju Baile gave a blow of spear on the left rib of his father. His brother Baban Aloneobstructed the second blow. Gokul then assaulted his father on his head with iron rod. Then the restof the persons assaulted the complainant and others with sticks. Baban @ Vidyadhar is alleged tohave sustained severe injury. Baban had escaped from the spot. The complainant and others firstlywent to Babhulgaon Police Station. PW1 lodged the report which is at Exh.

180. Then they went to Civil Hospital at Babhulgaon.

His father Ramdas was declared dead.

ig The complainant and others again came to the Police Station as they had sustained injuries. Theywere referred to Civil Hospital. PW1 has deposed that Premdas Bhagat and Premdas Deotale were

present at the time of incident.

(c) In the cross-examination, PW1 has stated that at the time of incident his mother was Up-

sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. In the past, his father was also Sarpanch on several occasions. Hehas evaded to answer as to whether his father was externed at any point of time.

(d) He has also admitted that the spot of incident is near the house of Sharad Mankar. There is aschool near the scene of offence and the rear portion of the school is used by the residents of thehutment area for defecation. PW1 has feigned ignorance about the criminal antecedents of his

father.

(e) He has admitted in the cross-

examination that after the auto stopped, the assailants obstructed them and then assaulted withsticks. The clothes of the victims as well as the inner side of the auto were blood stained. Thematerial omissions elicited in the cross-examination are as follows:




9/21

The fact ig that my brother Baban obstructed the second blow is not found in myreport for which I have no reason. The fact that Gokul assaulted my father with tomion his head is not found in my report for which I have no reason. The fact thatPremdas Deotale was in our auto is not found my report and statement for which Ihave no reason. The fact that Premdas Bhagat was the driver of the auto is not foundin the report and the statement of police.

(f) The omission which is proved through the evidence of PW13 Investigating Officer is to the extentthat Vivekanand had not told that Premdas Deotale was in the said auto. He has not stated thatPremdas Bhagat was driving the said auto. He had not stated that Raju Baile assaulted his father onribs.

(g) PW1 has deposed before the Court that the incident had taken place on Gondhari Road and it issurrounded by agricultural fields. He has further stated thus:-

It is true taking advantage of such spot and darkness, some 15 persons had attackedus. It is true I heard the shouts of my father and when I saw, I found him lyingunconscious (with bleeding injury).

(g) On perusal of the vernacular version of PW1, it is found that he has stated that he saw his fatherlying unconscious and there is no mention of bleeding injury. In the cross-examination, he hasfurther stated that he had called the auto driver after the incident. According to PW1, at the time ofincident, he was sitting in the auto on the rear side along with his mother and brother and his fatherwas sitting next to the driver. According to him, the persons had encircled the said auto. His fatherwas sitting on the left side of the driver. He has admitted that:-

the fact the accused persons assaulted myself, my father, mother and brother is notfound in my report and statement.

(h) From the evidence of PW1, it can be inferred that it was a faction stricken village , one groupbelonged to his father and another was of one Chute.

(i) The material admission in the evidence of PW1 is:

It is true first my father went to the house of Premdas Bhagat for auto but he did not

come. It is true soon after our auto was obstructed, there were assaults with sticks.


(a) PW3 Arvind Shyamrao Alone is the brother of deceased Ramdas. According to him on18.12.2002 he was coming from Nagpur to Mubarakpur in his Ambasaddor Car along with his wife.Near the hutment of Mubarakpur, he saw an auto and there were 15 to 20 persons on the spot.Those persons were assaulting the passengers of the said auto. Raju Baile assaulted with spear,Gokuldas had one tomy bar and the others were armed with sticks. They were assaulting the persons




10/21

of the auto.

(b) According to PW3, the assailants saw the car and fled away. He stopped the car and found hisbrother in a pool of blood. He was unconscious.

Lalita and Vivek had sustained injuries and, therefore, he took them to the hospital at Babhulgaon in

the auto.

Doctor declared Ramdas dead.

(c) In the cross-examination, he has stated that the car was hired by him and the driver was drivingthe car. No villagers were present at that time. He was present in the village till the investigation wasig completed. Certain omissions in respect of involvement of Rahul Ghodeswar are elicited in thecross-examination. However, the investigating officer was not confronted with the same. He hasadmitted in the cross-examination that by the time he reached near the auto-rickshaw, theassailants had fled away. He had been to the Police Station in the car.

From the long distance, he could not see the passengers in the auto.

(d) PW3 appears to be a chance witness.

PW1 has not stated that soon after the incident, PW3 came on the spot and that he had taken themto the hospital or had accompanied them to the Police Station.

In fact the testimony of PW1 would show that he has not mentioned the presence of PW3 at all. PW3

has stated that the injured was taken to the hospital. However, PW1 who is the injured witness, hasdeposed that they first went to the Police Station and then to the Hospital. PW3 has not namedaccused nos. 7,8,11 and

12.


(a) ig PW4 Baban Alone is the son of deceased Ramdas and brother of PW1. According to him on18.12.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. when he returned home from Erangaon, he saw an auto standing in

front of his house, his parents and brother were boarding in the said auto and they asked him to jointhem. Upon inquiry, they informed him that Gokul had assaulted Vivek.

(b) PW4 has further deposed that in the square of the village, Premdas Deotale joined them.

Near the hutment, Raju Baile, Vinayak Chute, Raju Alone and 10 to 12 persons obstructed the auto.Raju Baile assaulted his father with a spear on his head.




11/21

While he was alighting from the auto, Gokul assaulted him with iron tomy bar. Vinayak assaultedhim with a stick and thereafter he escaped from the spot and went to Panchkhed. He went toBabhulgaon Hospital at 3 a.m. and was referred to the hospital at Yavatmal from where he wasdischarged on 21.12.2002. He claims to have sustained injuries to the little finger of right hand, tothe right palm, left leg, left ribs and left eye.

(c ) In the cross-examination, he has admitted his criminal antecedents. He claims to be present atthe ig spot of incident for five minutes.

There is no reference to Premdas Deotale in his previous statement. He admits to have escaped fromthe spot in the darkness.

(d) The material omissions elicited in the cross-examination are that he was attacked when he wasalighting from the auto and further:

I had told the Police that the persons surrounding us had assaulted my father, butthis fact is not found in my statement to Police.

This omission is proved. The description of the weapons is also an omission. He has furtheradmitted:

the fact that other persons also

assaulted him is not found in my

statement to Police.


(a) The prosecution has also placed reliance on the evidence of PW6 Lalita Alone w/o Ramdas. Sheis an injured witness. According to her on 18.12.2002, Gokul Rangari had taunted her husband.

Her son Vivekanand tried to give him an understanding.

Gokul assaulted her son with iron tomy bar. Her husband then fetched the auto of Premdas Bhagat.

ig Her husband, her two sons and herself boarded the rickshaw for going to Babhulgaon to lodge thereport.

(b) According to PW6 10 to 15 persons obstructed their auto. Raju Baile assaulted her husband witha spear at his ribs. Gokul assaulted him with a tomy bar on his head and thereafter accused Nos.




12/21

3,5,6,7,8,10 and 13 assaulted them with sticks. Her husband fell unconscious as he had sustainedinjuries on his left ribs and head. Her sons had also sustained injuries. According to her, they tookher husband to the hospital at Babhulgaon. He died in the hospital.

(c) The motive attributed by her for the alleged incident is that the accused persons were annoyedbecause she was Upsarpanch and her husband used to help her.

(d) PW6 has stated that it was the full moon day on the date of incident and similarly she couldidentify the assailants in the light of one car.

It is material to note that she has not stated that the said car was of her brother-in-law or that shehad noticed him in the said car. In the cross-examination, the source of light for identifying theassailants is elicited as an omission.

(e) The motive attributed to the accused is also an omission. She has admitted in the cross-

examination that the villagers disapproved the participation of her husband in the activities of GramPanchayat. The Gram Sabha had objected the interference of her husband in the affairs of the GramPanchayat and some villagers had also attempted to beat her husband and, therefore, he was forcedto leave the venue of the meeting.

(f) In respect of the incident, she has stated that when the auto reached near the hutment, thepersons who had gathered there, had attacked them and at the time of attack, they were sitting inthe auto.

She has admitted that she had sustained injuries due to assault by sticks. It is material to note thatin the cross-examination she has stated that all four persons were sitting in the rear portion of theauto. The assailants had surrounded the auto. She has expressed inability to ascertain as to whichperson assaulted her and her sons and on which portions of their bodies.

(g) In the cross-examination, it is further admitted that Rajendra Alone was prosecuting hiseducation in another village and his father and sister lived in Mubarakpur. Similarly in the past, hewas the Member of Gram Panchayat. She has further stated that when her son Arvind reached onthe spot, her husband was unconscious. She has denied that she was sitting next to her husband inthe auto but has stated that there were blood stains in the auto because of the bleeding injuries

sustained by her and her husband.


(a) The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW7 Dadaram Dhone. According to thiswitness, on 18.12.2002 at about 7.30 to 8 p.m. he was proceeding to answer nature s call. He sawthat Gokuldas and Vivek Alone were engaged in some verbal altercation.

(b) While PW7 was returning after




13/21

answering nature s call, he heard loud shouts. He saw

an auto standing on the road. He saw some persons

assaulting the inmates in the auto. He saw Raju Baile

armed with a spear and Gokul armed with an iron rod and others were armed with sticks and someof them were not armed with any weapon.

(c) PW7 saw Ramdas, Lalitabai, Vivek and Baban in the auto and Ramdas was unconscious and in apool of blood. He then advised them to go to the Hospital. He had seen the assailants in the light ofMoon and one Ambasaddor car. He has admitted that he is the real maternal uncle of RamdasAlone.

(d) Material omissions in respect of the incident are elicited in the cross-examination. The saidomissions are proved. He has admitted in the cross-examination that when he reached the spot, theassailants had fled away and he had only seen Ramdas lying unconscious and others havingsustained injuries.

This admission makes it clear that he has not seen the assault.


(a) PW2 Dr. Lalitkumar Borkar was working as a Medical Officer at Primary Health CentreBabhulgaon. He has deposed before the Court that on 18.12.2002 a person in dead condition andanother in injured condition came to the hospital.

ig He intimated

Police Station Babhulgaon. The intimation is at Exh.

183.

(b) PW2 has examined PW4 Baban Alone on

19.12.2002 at 3.30 a.m. He was brought by Police

Constable Ashok. The injury certificate of Baban Alone




14/21

is at Exh.184. The injuries sustained by him and

noticed by PW2 are as follows:-

a] swelling below left eye with

redness;

b] swelling over left wrist;

c] swelling over left knee;

d] Complaint of pain in chest

wall over 8-9th rib referred

for x-ray;

e] Incised wound on distal

segment of small finger;

f] incised wound on right sole on

inner margin.




15/21

(c) PW2 has also examined Vivekanand Alone

at 12.30 a.m. He was also brought by Police Constable

Ashok.

is at

The injury certificate of PW1 Vivekanand Alone Exh.185. The description of the injuries sustained byhim are:

(i) Vertical contusion 2 inch long

over right upper arm.

(ii) Incised wound over right hand

fingers.

(d) PW2 has also examined PW6 Lalita w/o

Ramdas. Her injury certificate is at Exh.186. The description of the injuries sustained by her is anabrasion on right hand, middle finger with swelling on posterior side. No other obvious injury seen.

The intimation at Exh.183 would show that Ramdas was taken to the Hospital at 10.10 p.m. Theintimation was given at 10.20 p.m. The original Exh.183 clearly shows that there is overwriting inrespect of the time of admission.

10. The autopsy on the dead body of Ramdas was performed by Dr. Vipul Ambade at YavatmalHospital on 19.12.2002 between 11.45 a.m. and 2.50 p.m. Column no.

21 shows presence of alcohol in the stomach of the deceased. The cause of death is stated as shockand haemorrhage due to stab wounds to left lung and aorta.




16/21

11. The panchas to the recovery panchanama have turned hostile. The weapons seized were sent forchemical analysis and no blood is detected on the iron rod, the iron spear. The blood group of thedeceased could not be determined and hence the recovery of weapon would be renderedinsignificant.


(a) PW13 Shankar Dankalwar is the A.P.I.

who was the investigating officer. He states that he had sent three injured persons for medicalexamination along with requisition letters which are at Exhs. 234 to 235. In the cross-examination,he has admitted as follows:-

it was revealed in my investigation that the deceased was taken out from the auto andwas then assaulted. It was also revealed that Lalita who is the wife of deceased wasthe Upsarpanch.

(b) ig PW13 has proved the omissions in the statement of complainant that she had not stated thatRaju Baile assaulted his father on his ribs.

Similarly, Lalita had not stated on which part of the body, Raju Baile assaulted the deceased. Babanhad not stated that while he was alighting from the auto, he was assaulted. He had neither statedthat the persons surrounding him had assaulted his father.

(c) It is significant to note that the investigating officer has stated that there was no evidence about

the prelude to the incident that the assault on Vivekanand by Gokul a few minutes before theassault. He had also inquired from the persons residing in the locality where the incident hadoccurred. However, the said statements do not find place in the charge sheet and, therefore, thewitnesses are not examined by the prosecution.

13. The spot panchanama is at Exh.191. Premnath Chandrabhan Bhagat is the panch to the spotpanchanama.

In fact Premnath Bhagat would be the best witness but for reasons known to the prosecution,Premnath Bhagat has been withheld. According to the eyewitnesses, the incident had occurred when

they were proceeding to the Police Station in the auto-rickshaw driven by Premdas Bhagat.

14. In the present case, the charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148and 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. The accused are also convicted for offence punishable under Section324 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. for causing injury to the witnesses. From the evidence on therecord, the common object of the unlawful assembly will have to be ascertained. Section 147 of theIndian Penal Code is the penalizing section for the offence which is defined under Section 146 ofIPC. As soon as the force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof inprosecution of the common object of such assembly, the offence of rioting would be completed. The




17/21

common object of the unlawful assembly could be inferred from their conduct. The evidence onrecord adduced by the prosecution would show that:

a) unlawful assembly had obstructed the auto-

rickshaw,

b) there was no exhortation by any member of the unlawful assembly,

c) the admission of PW1 eyewitness that soon after the auto was obstructed, therewas assault with sticks.

This admission would show that the object of the unlawful assembly was to cause fear in the mindsof the witnesses and secondly to cause hurt. The accused besides Raju Baile and Gokul had neitherassaulted the deceased nor had aided accused nos. 1 and 2 in mounting assault on deceased Ramdas.The accused nos. 3 to 15 cannot be attributed with the knowledge about the acts to be committed byaccused nos. 1 and 2.

15. Section 149 of I.P.C. is divided into two parts which are not to be read in alternative but inconjunction with each other. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly inprosecution of the common object of that assembly or such act the members of that assembly knewto be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object every person who at the time of thecommitting of that offence is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.

16. Hence in the second limb of Section 149 of IPC knowledge of the members of the unlawful

assembly that any member of the said assembly may commit a particular act is necessary. In thepresent case, in the absence of any cogent, convincing and unimpeachable evidence, it would bedifficult to hold that all the members of the unlawful assembly had the knowledge that accused nos.1 and 2 are likely to assault Ramdas in a manner which would result into his death.

17. Wherever there is a direct evidence, then the evidence has to be weighed and not counted.According to the eyewitnesses, there were two independent witnesses to the incident. They werePremdas Bhagat and Premdas Deotale. Both the witnesses were in the auto-rickshaw and yet theyhave been withheld by the prosecution leaving room for injured interested witnesses.

18. The variance in the evidence of the eyewitnesses would clearly go to the root of the matterespecially in respect of the place where the deceased was seated in the auto-rickshaw. According toPW1, his father deceased Ramdas was sitting next to the driver and he and his mother and brotherwere sitting on the rear side, whereas PW4 has stated that they had picked up Premdas Deotale fromthe square and according to him, he, his parents and brother were seated in the rear side of the auto.PW6 has stated that all four persons were in the rear portion of the auto. In the cross-examination,PW6 has stated that her husband was sitting on the left side of the auto. Vidyadhar was sitting nextto him and then Vivekanand. As against this, PW7 Dadaram Dhone has stated that he found theauto in a stationary position and some persons were obstructing the auto. All the assailants were not




18/21

armed, although the witnesses have stated that there were blood stains in the auto, neither the autois seized nor the auto driver is examined.

19. According to PW1, they had first been to the Police Station and then to the Hospital, is falsifiedby the intimation at Exh.183. The intimation was given to the Police ig Station by the MedicalOfficer and thereafter PW1 had been to the Police Station. Rather all the witnesses had been to the

Police station and then were referred for medical examination along with the requisition of thePolice. The injuries sustained by the witnesses were simple, contusion and abrasions.

The injuries sustained by the witnesses are on non-

vital parts and mostly on the fingers of their hands and on forearm.

20. PW1 Vivekanand has stated that it was Baban who had obstructed the second blow beingmounted by Raju Baile. This is corroborated by injury no.5 sustained by Baban which is incisedwound on distal segment of small finger. Vivekanand has not stated that he had also attempted tostall the blow by a sharp object. However, injury no.2 sustained by Vivekanand is an incised woundover right hand fingers on root of small finger, tip of ring finger, middle finger and thumb.

21. PW6 Lalita only sustained an abrasion on the middle finger of right hand. Hence it appears thatthe common object of the members of the unlawful assembly was to cause hurt. The evidence of thewitnesses would show that the members of the assembly i.e. accused nos.

3 to 15 have not caused any serious injuries to the witnesses. Acts done by some members ofunlawful assembly outside the common object of the assembly are 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 areonly liable for the acts which they have committed. Accused nos. 3 to 15 do not appear to be theactual perpetrators of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of I.P.C.

22. The course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly would be a relevant factor. Inthe case at hand, the common object of the assembly is not discernible. It can be held the principaloffenders intended to cause the fatal assault upon Ramdas.

Merely because the other accused were members of the unlawful assembly, it cannot be held thatthey shared the common object more so in the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution

in that behalf.

23. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has relied upon the judgment delivered by the ApexCourt in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kashirao and others reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 4464wherein it is held that:-

The expression in prosecution of common object as appearing in Section 149 have tobe strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain the common object . Themembers of the unlawful assembly may have community of object upto certain point




19/21

beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by eachmember of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object mayvary not only according to the information at his command but also according to theextent to which he shares the community of object and as a consequence of this theeffect of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the sameassembly.

24. In the case cited supra, the High Court had convicted the main assailants for offence underSection 326 read with 147 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to 3 years R.I. The facts of the case are thatall the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly, they were armed with weapons like swordand axe, the others were armed with lathis. The accused had hurled stones at the house of Pundlik,threatened to kill him and his friend and the ig accused persons chased the victim, committed hismurder and returned back to the house of PW1, pelted stoned and when he attempted to escape,they chased him, gave blows, severed the left arm of PW1 and caused injuries on his right arm. Theyassumed him to be dead and returned to the village and carried the severed arm and showed it to hismother. Hence the facts of the case as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution can bedistinguished.

25. The learned APP has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sudhir AnnajiChoudhary vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri.) 1179, in which it wasestablished that the unlawful assembly comprises of 40 persons out of which different personsjoined and/or common in the acts of shouts, utterances and assault had been identified.

The common object was established. The appeals were partly allowed. The facts are distinguishable.It is held therein for convicting any accused for offence punishable under Section 149 of IPC,

vicariously or constructively, for an act of unlawful assembly, proof of common object from theconduct of the accused persons distinctig from the common intention is a condition precedent.

26. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in the case of PandurangChandrakant Mhatre .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 10 SCC 773, wherein the specificovert acts of the accused persons who had caused death was distinguished from the act of thepersons against whom there was general allegation and wherein it was held that:

the conduct of each member of unlawful assembly before and at the time of attack isrelevant consideration. Object of unlawful assembly is a question of fact which has to

be determined keeping in view nature of assembly, arms carried by member andbehaviour of member at/or near scene of incident.

27. In the present case, the eyewitnesses have described the incident by stating that the assemblyobstructed the auto-rickshaw. They mounted assault with sticks and then accused nos. 1 and 2 gavethe fatal blows to deceased Ramdas. Hence it is clear that the object of the unlawful assembly was tocause hurt.




20/21

Only accused nos. 1 and 2 had shared the common intention of causing the fatal blows and hencethey would be liable for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. Section 34 takesinto account the fact of the participation of every individual offender in the offence which is thereindescribed as a criminal act as well as his mental state which is connoted by the word intention. Theweapons carried by accused no.1 and 2 and the situs of the body chosen by them clearly indicatestheir intention. The other accused had not obstructed the witnesses from intervention nor they

assaulted the deceased. The injuries reflected in Column No.17 do not show that the deceased hadsustained any injuries by sticks. The eye-witnesses have also not alleged the accused persons besidesaccused nos.1 and 2 had assaulted the deceased.

28. The learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the case of Kuldip Yadav and others .vs.

State of Bihar reported in (2011) 5 SCC 324. It is held:

A mere possibility of the commission of the offence would not necessarily enable theCourt to draw an inference that the likelihood of commission of such offence waswithin the knowledge of every member of the unlawful assembly. It is difficultindeed, though not impossible, to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. Aninference may be drawn from circumstances such as the background of the incident,the motive, the nature of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by themembers of the assembly, their common object and the behaviour of the memberssoon before, at or after the actual commission of the crime. Unless the applicability ofSection 149- either clause is attracted and the court is convinced, on facts and in law,both, of liability capable of being fastened vicariously by reference to either clause ofSection 149 IPC, merely because a criminal act was committed by a member of the

assembly every other member thereof would not necessarily become liable for suchcriminal act.

29. The totality of circumstances would lead to an inference that accused nos. 1 and 2 had sharedcommon intention which is reflected from the acts committed by them and proved by eyewitnesses.Intention is subjective and a matter of inference from the conduct of accused.

30. The object of a charge is to warn the accused of the case he has to answer. Section 34 of I.P.C.and Section 149 of I.P.C. are overlapping but cannot be construed to be diverse. Section 34 is merelydeclaratory of a rule of criminal liability and does not create a distinct offence whereas Section 149

of I.P.C. creates a specific offence and postulates an unlawful assembly having a common object.

31. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SC 796 inthe case of Chittarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and 2006 Cri.L.J.

2113 (S.C.) in the case of Dhaneshwar Mahakud and others vs. State of Orissa wherein it is held:

injuries sustained by deceased clearly indicates intention of accused-appellantsMerely because charge was framed under Section 302 r/w S.149 I.P.C. and not under




21/21

302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., no prejudice can be said to have been caused toaccused- Conviction of accused under section 302 with aid of Section 34 ispermissible.

32. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charge under Section 341 of I.P.C.is inadequate as there is no cogent evidence to show that the prosecution witnesses were wrongfully

restrained.

In fact the evidence is of obstruction. Hence the accused are acquitted for offence punishable underSection 341 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.

33. In the above mentioned premises, it would be unsafe to convict all the accused for offencepunishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. with the aid of Section 149. Hence the order:-

a) The appeal filed by original accused nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Criminal Appeal No.368/2006 so far as itrelates to accused nos.1 and 2 is dismissed.

Accused nos. 1 and 2 are held guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.

b) Criminal Appeal Nos.368/2006, 353/2006, 369/2006 and 396/2006 filed by accused nos. 3 to 15are partly allowed. The other accused i.e. original accused nos. 3 to 15 are acquitted of offencepunishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. However, their conviction on the othercounts is maintained. They had undergone the sentences awarded to them on the other counts i.e.for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 read with Section 324 of I.P.C.

c) Accused nos. 4,5,7,8,9 and 11 are in jail since 20.12.2002. Accused nos. 3 to 10 and 12 to 15 be setat liberty forthwith, if not required, in any other offence. Bail bonds of original accused no.11 standcancelled.

d) Fine amount, if paid by accused nos. 3 to 15 imposed under Section 302 read with 149 of I.P.C., berefunded to them.

(Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.) ( A.H. Joshi, J.)

-0-0-0-0-


Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari vs State of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2012

Documents