SHAIKH MAJID Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. By a common judgment two appeals were disposed of. Both the appeals were directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1990. Originally there were 37 accused persons in the Sessions Case who faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 395, 436, 324, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, (in short the 'Telegraph Act') and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984 (in short the 'Public Property Act') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (in short the 'Religious Institutions Act'). Learned Trial judge convicted the present appellants who were accused Nos.1 and 26 respectively for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations and three years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation were imposed. Appellant No. 2-Shaikh Abbas was also convicted for offences punishable under Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offences punishable under Section 435 read with Section 149 IPC, and for offences punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently and it was further directed that in case the fine amount was realized, part of it, i.e. Rs.10,000/-, was to be paid to the widow of Jaynarayan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Three prosecution witnesses were also directed to be paid compensation of Rs.1,000/-. Law was set into motion on the basis of the statement given by the one Krishna (PW4), Sandu, Police Inspector (PW-11), recorded the statement which was treated as the First Information Report (in short the 'FIR'). The information given by him was to the following effect:

(3.) As noted above, on the basis of information given by Krishna, (PW-4) case was registered under Sections 307,147, 148, 149 and 323 IPC. Investigation was undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was filed. At this juncture, it is to be noted that another FIR was lodged at about 6 p.m. by appellant - accused No.1 against Krishna (PW4) and others. Charge sheet thereafter was filed. Undisputedly, there was order of acquittal in the said case. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence adduced, held present appellants guilty of offence committed punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also found guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 324 in relation to the injury caused to Krishna PW4. As noted above, appellant- Shaikh Majid was also convicted under various other provisions. The stand of the appellants before the High Court was that the evidence of the so called eye witnesses PWs. 4, 5, 6 & 7 was not consistent. Only one blow was given and that in course of a sudden quarrel, injuries were sustained by the accused persons. The prosecution has, therefore, suppressed the truth. The plea was not accepted and as noted above their appeal was dismissed.