ANSARAM RAMBHAU YELVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eleven persons, including the eight appellants in these appeals, were indicted before the Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.82 of 1982 for rioting and murders and other allied offences in prosecution of their common objects. The trial ended with an order of conviction and sentenced under Section 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 IPC recorded against all of them and also under Section 304 (Part I) IPC against two of them namely, Bajirao and Dagdu and of acquittal in favour of the other three. The cross case instituted against some of the witnesses of the above trial and others, for rioting and assault, which was also tried by the Sessions Judge (Sessions Case No.9 of 1983) however ended in an order of acquittal of all the persons arraigned. Against their convictions and sentences the appellants preferred two appeals one by Bajirao and Dagdu and the other by the rest. The respondent-State of Maharashtra also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants in respect of the charge under Section 302/149 IPC. A revision petition assailing the acquittal of the accused persons in the cross case was also filed by the appellant Ansaram. All the above matters were heard together by the High Court and disposed of by a common judgment by allowing the appeal of the State and dismissing the other two appeals and the criminal revision petition. While allowing the appeal of the State, the High Court convicted all the appellants under Section 302/149, 324/149 IPC and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, including life, and fine, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The High Court also convicted five of the appellants under Section 148 IPC and the other three under Section 147 IPC but no separate sentence was passed for these convictions. The present appeals have been filed by the appellants, in different sets, under Section 379 Cr. P.C. and Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 assailing the above judgment of the High Court.

(2.) We may at the outset point out that Mr. Lalit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants fairly conceded that one of these appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal No.825 of 1985 which has been filed by the appellant Ansaram challenging the dismissal of his revision petition against the order of acquittal in the cross case could not have been filed either under Section 379, Cr. P.C. or Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. We, therefore, dismiss Criminal Appeal No.825 of 1995 as not maintainable.

(3.) Before we proceed to consider the facts on which the parties have joined issue, we may refer to those which remain uncontroverted. The appellants Bajirao, Ansaram, Dadarao, Sarjarao and Haribhau are real brothers being sons of late Rambhau Yelve. Of the other three appellants, Dagdu is the son of Haribhau, Mantaram is the son of the mother's sister of Bajirao and Achit is the servant of Dadarao. The sons of Rambhau (hereinafter referred to as the 'Yelves') own survey No.313 of village Gujarwadi. To the adjoining north of this land is Survey No.312, the eastern most strip of which measuring 100' x 40', was jointly owned by Gana, his son Sopan (the two deceased) and Nivrutti (P.W.11), nephew of Gana. To the immediate west of that strip of land are the strips of Dagdu, Devaibai and Vithal (P.W.1), in that order. Vithal also owns a small strip of land adjoining Gana's land on the north. In between the lands of Yevles and Gana runs a small Nala which is about 10 feet wide. On the southern bank of the Nala, that is, on the northern bank of the land of the accused there is a thick cactus growth.