GANPAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.72 of 2020, registered with Police Station, Kundalwadi Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Estling S. Murge and learned APP for respondent Mr. N. T. Bhagat.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that though the incident is stated to have taken place in the intervening night of 05-05-2020 to 06-05-2020, yet the FIR appears to have been lodged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code at the late hours on 06-05-2020. At that time the said FIR was against unknown person. Deceased was the father of the informant and the deceased had gone to sleep at a place which was under construction, and when it was found that the father has not got up and come to home around 7.45 a.m., it was found that the father was in injured condition. The father of the informant was shifted to Yashosai Hospital at Nanded and while under treatment, he expired at about 4.30 p.m. on 08-05-2020. In his supplementary statement taken on 09-05-2020 the informant has arrayed present applicant as accused, but the said supplementary statement would show that it was on the basis of the suspicion. Present applicant is the uncle of informant. In his supplementary statement the informant has stated that the applicant, his father and one Vyankat Navathe had taken 36 Acres of land belonging to one Pandharinath Dachawar for cultivation in 2016. However when the crops did not come as per expectation, the father of the informant refused to take part in the cultivation activity in 2017. The land owner therefore did not give the land for cultivation to the applicant and Vyankat Navathe. On that count the applicant used to say that because of the father of the informant, he could not get the said land. Thereafter, one lady by name Laxmibai Bhumanna Arshewar who was residing with the applicant committed suicide due to the harassment by applicant, his wife and daughter. At that time the deceased had given statement against the present applicant and on that count also the applicant was annoyed with the deceased. These were the reasons given by the informant to array the applicant but he has not stated when the suicide had taken place. The reason for the action on 05-05-2020 or 06-05-2020 could not be stretched back for about two years. The statements of witnesses would also echo the same facts and it appears that they are mostly on the basis of suspicion. Statement of two witnesses Ravi Thakurwar and Prakash Karpe taken on 19-05-2020 would show that they claimed that they had seen the applicant at 04.00 a.m. of 06-05-2020 and 11.00 p.m. on 05-05-2020, going towards the spot in suspicions manner. In fact, they had attended the funeral and had knowledge about lodging of FIR by the informant, yet why they had kept quite for so many days is a question and their statements cannot be taken as any such evidence which should keep the applicant behind bar till the trial is over. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire charge-sheet, it can be seen that there is no necessity that the applicant should be kept behind bar as the trial would take long time to stand.