LAWS(SC)-1980-9-57

MAYAPPA DHONDANNA PADEADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 17, 1980
MAYAPPA DHONDANNA PADEADE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty-two persons, according to the FIR lodged by PW 14, wife of Mayappa, had assaulted and caused the death of two persons viz., Vyankanna and Muryappa. PW 14. The informant claimed to be an eyewitness of the incident. In the FIR, she stated that the assailants were armed with axes & sticks. After investigation the police found that there was no case worth prosecution against 8 out of the 22 persons denounced as culprits in the F.I.R and presented a challan against 14 only, out of the 22 named as the assailants in the F.I.R. The trial court convicted accused 1 to 4, who were real brothers, and acquitted the other 10 accused persons, including accused 5, who is also a brother of Accused 1 to 4. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of those ten accused, but before the High Court the appeal appears to have been pressed against accused 5, only. Accused 1 to 4 also filed an appeal against their conviction to the High Court. The HighCourt dismissed the appeal filed by Accused 1 to Accused 4, but accepted the appeal filed by the State against Accused 5 only and convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. Accused 5 has now come in appeal before us under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.

(2.) As already noted in this case, a very large number of persons were implicated in the F.I.R. Against eight of them, no case was disclosed by Police investigation. Out of the 14 prosecuted, ten were acquitted by the trial court. The Stale appeal against the acquittal of nine persons did not succeed in the High Court. There was thus every possibility of several innocent persons having been roped in along with the guilty. Against this background the approach of the Court should have been marked with more than ordinary caution.

(3.) Appellant (Accused 1) was at the material time an M.Sc. student at Kolhapur. At the trial he pleaded alibi but failed to prove it. Mr. Datar, counsel for the appellant, very fairly has not reagitated this defence, but he submits with great emphasis that the presence and participation of the appellant in the assault on the two deceased persons was not established beyond reasonable doubt. It appears to us that this contention must prevail.