UDAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule Returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of learned Advocate for the parties.

(2.) By this revision application order dated 06052009 below Exhibit 118 for discharge in Sessions Trial No.76/2004 is challenged by the applicants, who have been arrayed as accused persons during the course of trial under the orders made by this Court with reference to power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that original two principal accused Shripad Dattatray Mande and Damodhar Konduji Ingale are facing trial for double murder of Purushottam Laxman Pimple and his wife Pratibha Pimple. Though accused persons were close relatives of one Shakuntala Mande, she had given the property under Will to said Purushottam and his wife rather than the accused No.1 and therefore, both these accused persons had made a plan to commit murder of the beneficiaries of Will. Not only that, these two main accused persons forged the Will dt. 15112003 forging the signature of Shakuntala Mande etc. in favour of accused No.1. The allegations against these two applicants before me are that they are attesting witnesses to the said forged Will dated 15112003. After commencement of the trial, applicant Uday was examined before the Sessions Judge and in paragraphs 3 and 4 in examinationinchief he stated that he had signed the said Will Exhibit 46, so also his mother as attesting witnesses but on the false representation made by the said two accused persons and they were not aware what was scribed in the Will. Needless to state that Uday was examined as prosecution witness. It is only on the basis of this version recorded by the Sessions Court so also the statement before the Taluka Inspector of Land Records the principal accused Shripad and Damodhar moved an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting the trial Court to issue accused summons to the present applicants i.e. Uday and his mother Kumudini and try them with those main accused persons. The trial Court rejected that application, against which accused persons filed criminal revision before this Court, which was allowed by this Court and consequently these two applicants were arrayed as accused persons in the said Sessions Trial. The said order stood confirmed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which reserved liberty in favour of the applicants to apply for discharge before the trial Court. Accordingly, the applicants filed application Exhibit 118 which has been rejected by the trial Court and hence, this revision application.