MOHAN GOVIND PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the applicants in this case seek enlargement on bail in C.R. No.147 of 2010, registered at the Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The allegation is that the first applicant Mohan Govind Pawar was engaged as a contractor to expand a floor on the house of one Sunita Suresh Pimple. The contract was given for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. Shri Jaywant Salunkhe seems to be a social worker who was opposed to such type of construction in the slum area. Therefore, he caused the work to be photographed on 5th or 6th of May, 2010. He possibly wanted to make a report to the authorities on the basis of those photographs. Therefore, he was to go to the photographer to collect the photographs. The applicants collected the photographs from the photographer and told the photographer to give them a call when the victim would come to collect the photographs. Accordingly, on receiving a missed call from the photographer, both the applicants are alleged to have beaten up the victim with fisticuffs. The applicant Mohan Govind Pawar is alleged to have hit the victim with a bamboo. The two applicants then took the victim to the police alleging that he was a chain snatcher. The victim was sent to a hospital by the police where he died. The post-mortem examination revealed that there were as many as 14 surface injuries, none of which was however serious. The abrasion on the penis is irrelevant since it was not on the scrotum or the testicles. On dissection, the Medical Officer found that the 7th, 8th and 9th ribs had been fractured but the lungs were intact. In fact all the internal organs, except the liver, were intact. The liver was lacerated. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to abdominal injuries associated with head injury. However, there was no fracture of skull & no injury to the brain except subdural haematoma. The investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed. In this context, the applicants seek their enlargement on bail. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that at worse the allegations made against the applicants may make them liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC. It could not be said that the applicants intended to cause the death of the victim since no weapon was used. The injuries were caused by fisticuffs and a bamboo. None of the injuries was on the vital part. He further submitted that had the applicants harboured any such intention, they would not have taken the victim to the police station.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the first informant submitted that there are several other persons involved in the offence and the offence was not being properly investigated. Therefore, the first informant was required to file a writ petition being Criminal Writ Petition No.2032 of 2010. A grievance was made in the writ petition that one Eknath Sanas was in constant touch on a telephone before the assault and these aspects were not investigated. Therefore, the Division Bench ordered that the matter should be looked into by an officer of a higher rank and accordingly an Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is present in the Court, & is looking after the investigation.