BABURAO BAJIRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal (Crl. A. No. 201 of 1966) along with three other appeals (including an appeal by the State against the acquittal of two accused persons) was disposed of by us on September 28, 1970. A review petition under O XL of the Supreme Court Rules (Review Petition No. 46 of 1970) was later presented on behalf of the appellant Baburao Bajirao Patil (accused No. 7 in the trial Court) for re-hearing this appeal so far as he is concerned on the ground that Mr. Frank Anthony, his learned Counsel was under the impression at the time of hearing that he was not being called upon to reply to the arguments of the Counsel for the State so far as accused No. 7 is concerned and that for this reason he did not address any arguments in reply On January 11, 1971 after hearing both sides we considered it proper to permit Mr. Anthony to reply to the arguments of the State Counsel Mr. Anthony then addressed us on the case against the appellant, Baburao Bajirao Patil on January 29, 1971 and we are now concerned only with his case. It may at the outset be observed that the learned Counsel in reply emphasised what he had said in his opening address and nothing new was brought to our notice.

(2.) The prosecution story is stated in our judgment dated September 28, 1970 in which we have dealt with the case against the present appellant and all the other co-accused whose cases were before us It is, therefore, not necessary to reproduce the prosecution story again. This case is one of conspiracy and it has to be borne in mind that by virtue of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong anything said, done or written by anyone of such persons in reference to their common intention was entertained by anyone of them would be relevant as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, both for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy and for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.

(3.) The appellant was, according to the prosecution, the real brain behind the conspiracy. He had been approached by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 for help and he thought of helping them by winning over the investigation officers. There is undoubtedly no direct evidence as indeed it is seldom-if ever-that direct evidence of conspiracies can be forthcoming. Conspiracy of the present type from its very nature must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, for otherwise the whole purpose would fail. The High Court noticed that the trial Court had catalogued a large number of circumstances against the appellant. In the opinion of the High Court the most important of them were, the appellant's movements on the morning of December 7, 1961, his acts in arranging for taxi from Sholapur, the Telangwadi meeting, his subsequent conduct in going back in the taxi with P.S.I. Patil to that officer's house at Mohol and having a conference with him there. Evidence on these points had been discussed by the High Court earlier when dealing with the prosecution case generally. These circumstances, according to the High Court, could only be understood and explained on the basis of the conspiracy as called by the prosecution. The High Court observed : The conduct of Baburao, as stated above, coupled with the movements of the taxi arranged by him during the night between the 7th and 8th December, 1961 and the happenings of the two days, which we have already discussed provide, in our opinion, a substantially strong chain of circumstances which leaves no reasonable doubt about the guilt of Baburao as a person who was a member of the conspiracy and had participated in the same. Earlier the High Court had, while discussing the general case of conspiracy expressed its conclusions in these words : In our opinion, however, the circumstances we have so far discussed, which relate to the happenings on the 7th and 8th of December, 1961, are sufficiently strong and of a conclusive nature to establish the prosecution case of the alleged conspiracy. Baburao's movements in going to Mohol and getting the taxi from Sholapur and proceeding in the said taxi to Telangwadi on the evening of the 7th of December, 1961 and waiting there for Rajbhau Nimbalkar to arrive from Modlimb; the arrival of Patil and Rajabhau at Telangwadi and their meeting with Baburao at that place and the subsequent travelling of Baburao and Patil in the taxi from Telangwadi to Mohol; the halt of the taxi at the place of P.S.I. Patil and the presence of Baburao at the place of Patil and the subsequent movements of the taxi during the night of the 7th and 8th December, 1961 leave no doubt, in our opinion, that Baburao had brought the taxi for no other purpose excepting that of the conspiracy and the meeting at Telangwadi and the movements of Baburao, P.S.I. Patil & Rajabhau Nimbalkar during the night of the 7th and 8th December, 1961 could only be explained on the basis of the alleged conspiracy. The presence of Rajabhau, P.S.I. Patil and the two accused at Modlimb during the night of the 7th; the meeting between P.S.I. Patil and Dy. S.P. Thorat at the dead of night at the Gram Panchayat Office; the subsequent arrival of the two accused along with Patil and Rajabhau in the taxi at the Mohol Sub-Jail early in the morning at 4 O-Clock; the conduct of Patil in trying to make the accused comfortable; his conduct in making entries in the log book and weekly diary showing his visit to Ropale village on the morning of the 8th in connection with the Modlimb theft case to cover up his real movements the telephonic call put in by Dy. S.P. Thorat to the D.S.P Sahani and his telling Khalsode at the station to that he was contacting the D.S.P. because the theft was traced and the conduct of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in yielding to the interrogation of the D.S.P. and producing the property form, in our opinion, a sufficiently strong chain of circumstances to establish that a criminal conspiracy of the nature as alleged by the prosecution had come to be formed and sought to be executed and of the said conspiracy, apart from thieves themselves P.S.I. Patil, Dy. S.P. Thorat, Baburao Patil and Rajabhau Nimbalkar were likely to be the members In our opinion, therefore, the prosecution has fairly established its case that a conspiracy of the nature as alleged by it existed.