DEOKA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, five in number, have challenged their conviction recorded by the High court under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Mahadu. For the offence under Section 148 they have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under S. 302/149 they have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under S. 323/34, Indian Penal Code, for causing injuries to Runjaba and each of them has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Original accused 1 having since died, no order of conviction was recorded against him.

(2.) The prosecution version regarding the incident is unfolded through the evidence of six eye-witnesses, viz. , Public Witness 3 Runjaba, the injured brother of the deceased, Public Witness 6 Kasturabai, widow of the deceased, Public Witness 5 Sahaji Saluba, a distant relative, Public Witness 8 Bagaji Rama, cousin of the deceased, Public Witness 7 Sonaba Thakaji and Public Witness 2 Sampat Ananda. From their evidence it appears that on the morning of 10/03/1973 the deceased had gone out to ease himself while his wife, Kasturabai was preparing tea. At that time the family members of the deceased as well as his brother Runjaba who were at their respective houses, heard a com- motion and rushed to the scene of occurrence. Many neighbours living in that lane, known as Dhanger lane, also had come out. The eye-witnesses deposed that the five persons were seen giving a beating to the deceased mahadu Laxman with sticks. Mahadu had fallen down on the ground and in order to save him from further blows, his wife Kasturabai fell on him. In the meantime his brother Runjaba went to his rescue but he too was beaten up. Both the brothers were then removed to the hospital where the unfortunate Mahadu passed away at about 12.30 p. m.

(3.) The investigation was actually carried out in two stages, first by the Head Constable and later by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Both the courts below have severely criticised the investigating agency for several of its lapses and we think rightly. It is difficult to comprehend the reasons for the sluggish manner in which the investigating agency conducted itself but it would suffice to say the investigation was far from Prompt and honest. We leave the matter at that.