TANAJI GOVIND MISAL DADASAHEB PATALU MISAL SHRIMANT VISHWANATH MISAL BABASAHEB CHANDU MISAL RAOSAHEB SHRIPATI MISAL S SHAHJI GOVIND MISAL NAMDEO NANASAHEB MISAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty nine persons were arraigned before an Additional Sessions Judge of Solapur for rioting, two murders and other related offences. The trial Judge convicted nineteen of them under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. and acquitted the rest. For the conviction under Section 302/149, I.P.C. the trial Judge sentenced three of the convicts to imprisonment for life and the remaining sixteen to rigorous imprisonment for two years each and fine. For the other convictions he sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment and fine with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Assailing the above judgment the nineteen convicts filed one composite appeal. The State also filed two appeals; one for setting aside the acquittal of the ten accused persons and the other for enhancement of the sentences imposed upon the nineteen convicts. A revision application was also filed by the complainant seeking similar reliefs. While admitting the appeal of the convicts the High Court issued a suo motu rule calling upon them to show cause why their sentences recorded under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. should not be enhanced. In disposing of all the matters by a common judgment the High Court set aside the convictions of five of the nineteen convicts and upheld those of the other fourteen. After upholding the conviction the High Court enhanced the sentences of those convicts who were imposed rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302/149, I.P.C. to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their appeals the fourteen convicts (who were arrayed as A1 to A8, A10, A12, A13, A17, A20 and A24 and henceforth will be so referred to) have filed these appeals which have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:

(3.) The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated. Some of them took the plea of alibi while others, through A1, gave a written statement detailing their version of the incident. The version so given is that the open space whereon babul trees grew belonged to some of them and for years together they had been cutting the trees for using them as fuel. As in previous years, they had cut the trees some 15 days prior to the incident and left them there to dry. In the evening of July 29, 1980 when A3 and A6 saw that some members of the complainant party were carrying those cut branches in the bullock-cart of P.W. 12, A3 and A6 accosted them and asked them not to do so. Without paying any heed to their objection, the members of the complainant party carried the branches to the farm of Sida Pandurang Misal and kept them there. A6 had then told them that they would take away the branches on the next day. Accordingly, when in the following morning A1 along with ten to fifteen persons were going to the farm of Sida Pandurang Misal with axes and sticks to remove the thorny branches, they saw the complainant party approaching them armed with axes and sticks. While they were at some distance from them A5 requested Ganpati (P.W. 2) to be prudent and get the claim regarding the trees decided by a competent Court of law. Instead of heeding to his advice the members of the complainant party started beating them with sticks and axes. At that stage they (the accused persons) attacked them in self-defence. They asserted that they had no intention to beat any of the persons of the complainant party. They lastly stated that A9, A11, A12, A14, A15, A18, A19, A21, A22 and A25 to A28 were not present at all at the time of the incident.