BABARAO VISHRAM SOLANKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 104/1994 on 3/4/1995, convicting the appellant (Original Accused Nos. 1 to 4) for committing murder of one Ambadas Patil, and imposing punishment of Rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay fine of Rs. 5000.00 each in default under section 302, read with 34 of I. P. C. , and acquitting all the accused for the charge of committing murder of Mahadeo Jadhav and attempt to commit murder of Shankar and Ratiram. THESE appeals are being disposed off by this common Judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is stated as follows : Deceased Mahadeo Motiram Jadhav, deceased Ambadas Patil, Shankar and Ratiram were residents of village Jamb (Bk), which comes under Police Station, Murtizapur. Deceased Mahadeo Jadhav was Sarpanch of village Jamb. Appellant Baburao Vishram Solanke, (Original accused no. 1) was Member of the Gram Panchayat, of village Jamb, and he was Leader of the opposition party. THE witness Shalanbai (P. W. 2) was the niece of deceased Mahadeo, while the witness Raju Jadhav (P. W. 7), was his son. It appears from the record that the witness Shalanbai was also Member of the Gram Panchayat, Jamb. Witness Shankar (P. W. 10) and Witness Ratiram (P. W. 3) who are victims of the assault, were also the members of the Gram Panchayat, Jamb belonging to the party of the Sarpanch deceased Mahadeo Jadhav. Deceased Ambadas had lodged report against the accused Babarao and others in the Police Station, for offence of committing theft, for which offence was registered as such, there was enmity between Deceased Ambadas Patil and accused Babarao, and due to that the latter had anger against the deceased Ambadas. It appears that there was political rivalry between deceased Mahadeo Jadhav and accused Babarao, since the latter was leader in opposition, in the Gram Panchayat of which the deceased Mahadeo was Sarpanch. THE incident which gave rise to the prosecution against the appellants took place on 26/11/1993. THE Witness Shalanbai, was returning to her house at about 5 p. m., while she was near the house of one Madhukar Raundale, she was accosted by the accused, and accused no. 1 Babarao told her that they have murdered one Ambadas Patil at village Jamb, and asked her about the whereabouts of her husband and further told that they wanted to kill Mahadeo Jadhav, and Tulsidas Gaikwad. When she was accosted by the accused, she saw a sword with accused no. 1, a spear with accused no. 4, one knife with accused no. 2 and clothes of the accused nos. 1 and 4 were stained with blood. THE accused ran towards the village Umai. She followed the accused. When she reached Umai, she noticed that the accused were assaulting her uncle deceased Mahadeo in front of the house of Ambadas Patil. Witness Raju also witnessed the assault on his father deceased Mahadeo. THE accused when noticed presence of Shalanbai and Raju they ran away. Deceased Mahadeo was lying with multiple grevious bleeding injuries on his person. He was carried in the Bullockcart. On their way Shalanbai noticed witness Ratiram Mankar, by the side of the road, holding his stomach with his hands. THEre was injury to his stomach. Deceased Mahadeo and injured Ratiram were brought to the Murtizapur Hospital, by Shalanbai in a Matador. Shalanbai lodged report Exh. 40, to the Police on the basis of which offence was registered at C. R. No. 339/1993, under Section 302, 307 read with 34 I. P. C. , at about 7. 30 p. m.

(3.) AT the trial prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, including the witnesses Shalanbai (P. W. 2), Ratiram (PW-3), Haridas (PW-4), Yeshwant (PW-5) (who was uncle of the deceased Ambadas), Raju Jadhav (PW-7), Kisan (PW-8), Shankar (PW-10 ). Of these witnesses the prosecution claimed that witness Haridas (PW-5), was eye witness to the assault on deceased Ambadas. The evidence of witness Shalanbai and Latabai was that of extra judicial confession made by the accused Babarao, disclosing that they have killed Ambadas. The evidence of witness Yeshwant, was that the deceased Ambadas Patil, made a statement that he was assaulted by the accused. The witness Shalanbai and Raju claimed to be eye witnesses as to the assault on deceased Mahadeo. The witness Ratiram gave his evidence as to assault on him by the accused no. 1, while witness Shankar gave his evidence about assault on him by the accused no. 1. The witness Kisan gave evidence as to assault on witness Ratiram. The prosecution also placed reliance on the circumstantial evidence as to the seizure of blood stained clothes and weapons which the accused produced. The Trial Court, found that the deceased Ambadas, met with homicidal death being established by the prosecution through evidence of independent witness Haridas and circumstantial evidence, and found accused no. 1 to 4 responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased Ambadas Patil. However, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants committed murder of Mahadeo, though he died homicidal death. The Trial Court also found that the prosecution failed to establish that witnesses Shankar and Ratiram were assaulted by the appellants, and there was attempt to commit their murder. Accordingly the learned Judge, convicted the appellants 1 to 4 for committing murder of Ambadas Patil, and has imposed sentence as stated earlier, and all the appellants were acquitted of the charge of committing murder of Mahadeo Jadhav, and attempt to commit murder of Ratiram and Shankar.