VILAS PANDURANG GOGAVALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) in Crime No.I-28 of 2020 registered with Police Station Poladpur, Raigad, for offences punishable under Sec. 302, 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). and Sec. 37(1)(a), 37(1)(c) and 135 of Maharashtra Police Act.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that informant's father, namely, Ganpat Vishram Mandhare (since deceased) was a worker of Shivsena whereas the applicant and accused named in the First Information Report (FIR) are from Shetkari Kamgar Paksha. They did not like the deceased working for Shivsena and therefore, used to abuse and threaten to kill him. On the day of incident, the informant received a phone call from his maternal uncle asking him to reach home immediately and after reaching there he found the deceased in a pool of blood and had sustained injuries on his head. Accordingly, he lodged complaint against the applicant and other co-accused.

(3.) Mr.Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that admittedly informant was not an eye witness and he only came to know through his maternal uncle about the incident. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the statement of Deepak Raghunath Jadhav wherein two persons, namely, Vithal Pandurang Mhaske and Sakharam Vishram Mandhare approached the police station and confessed of having killed the deceased by means of sticks on his head. According to the learned counsel this statement cannot be taken into consideration. The learned counsel then invited my attention to Smitil Ganpat Mandhare - son of the deceased and assailed the statement by submitting that his statement is a general statement and full of vagueness. He further assailed the conduct of this witness by submitting that although this witness claims to have witnessed the incident but immediately did not approach the police station. The learned counsel then invited my attention to the statement of Paresh Ganpat Mhaske and pointed out inconsistencies between his statement and statement of Smitil Ganpat Mandhare.