HANMANTU NAGAPPA JOGLEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seven persons were charged-sheeted for offences punishable under section 302 and section 326 read with section 34 of the IPC. However, the trial court after trial held that five of the accused were not guilty of the offences for which they were charged and acquitted them and convicted only accused no. 1 - Sangappa Berre and accused no 2 - Hanmantu Nagappa joglekar for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the ipc and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment with some amount of fine. Further they were found guilty for the commitment of the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 of the IPC and they were given different sentences.

(2.) In appeal, the High Court took the view that the conviction of accused no. 2 - hanmantu Nagappa Joglekar, i. e. appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has to be changed from section 302 read with section 34 IPC to section 302 read with section 114 IPC and the High Court set aside the conviction under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and accordingly modified the sentences.

(3.) In this appeal by accused no. 2, it is urged that the evidence adduced before the court in so far as the role played by him was through the depositions of ambadas (PW5) , Shiv Raj (PW6) , janardhan (PW7) and Hanmayya (PW10). Ambadas (PW5) stated that at about 3.45 to 4. 00 p. m. on 5.8.1990, he and his maternal uncle, mother, grand father and grand mother were at their house. At that time Sangappa Berre, accused no. 1, anand and Miland came there and started abusing them. Then his maternal uncle asked them not to abuse and at that stage the appellant came there and "instigated sangappa Berre to beat them and said he would see if anything happens". Identical to that effect was a statement made by pw 6 and PW 7. But their version before the police did not contain the statement that the appellant had instigated accused no. 1 to beat them and that he would take care if anything happens. The learned counsel, therefore, characterized that part of the evidence as an improvement made in the course of evidence tendered by them before the court. He further submitted that only the person who stated that the appellant had instigated Sangappa berre to beat them was Ambadas and none else. Further, summarising the evidence to which we have adverted to above the trial court noted as follows: