MADHAV MANIKRAO DHANDE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] BY these applications, the applicants are seeking grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 108 of 2011 reported at Police Station, Risod, District Washim, under Sections 201, 302, 330, 331, 341, 342, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act').

(3.) It is submitted that, after reporting the incident which was recorded as F.I.R. No.88 of 2011, not only Begya and Raju Pawar were medically examined, but all the policemen who were also injured were also medically examined at Government hospital, Risod and the Injury Certificates were issued regarding the medical examination done in respect of the injuries received by the injured persons. The Injury Certificates were issued to H.C. B.No.335, Prakash who is applicant in Bail Application No.40 of 2012. Prakash was admitted in the hospital during the period between 10.5.2011 to 14.5.2011. The Injury Certificate was also issued to H.C. B.No.343 Ashok Vaidya, who is applicant in Bail Application NO.212 of 2011; Vasant Jadhav, who is applicant in Bail Application No. 126 of 2012 ; Nagorao Khandke, who is applicant in Bail Application No.99 of 2012; Punjab Patkar, who is applicant in Bail application No.42 of 2012 and Madhav Dhande, who is applicant in Criminal Application No. 152 of 2012.

(4.) The learned Advocates for the applicants submitted that, on the pretext of investigation, a parallel story is sought to be developed regarding alleged assault by present applicants while deceased Begya was in their custody. In support of this submission on behalf of the applicants, map (page no.51 of the charge sheet papers) of the alleged spot of incident was relied upon in the charge sheet. It is submitted that the alleged spot of incident is about 63 ft. away from the male lockup room and the spot cannot be said to be in straight visible line from the male lockup gate looking to the map drawn by Circle Officer, Risod during the course of investigation. According to the Investigating Officer, witness Gnyaneshwar was locked in the male lockup room and he had seen the incident of assault by police claiming that, he was near the gate of the said male lockup room, he had seen Dhande saheb and other policemen assaulting two persons which, according to the learned Advocates for the applicants, appears improbable story as the alleged spot of incident could not have been visible from the spot where Gnyaneshwar was allegedly detained in the lockup. His statement was also recorded on 16.6.2011, when the incident is alleged to have occurred on 10.5.2011 though the averments made in the F.I.R. show that the steps of investigation were taken up* immediately by the Investigating Officer. Curiously enough, it is submitted that, in the F.I.R. dt. 14.6.2011, this statement of Gnyaneshwar was referred which was, in fact, recorded subsequently on 16.6.2011, two days after the F.I.R. Prima facie, it would be difficult to say as to why police will take him to the alleged spot of incident to enable him to witness the incident of assault by policemen. According to prosecution, another eye witness namely Nitin Bhaurao Deshmukh came forward on 19.7.2011 for to make a statement regarding the incident dt. 10.5.2011. He claimed that he was sitting opposite to the spot where the Station diary was kept in the Police Station. He also claims that he was watching telecast of a match on the TV. But, he does not refer to any alleged incident of assault by policemen. He did not give any particulars as to which match he was watching at those odd hours till 2.00 a.m. He claims that he had seen two persons who were brought by police, who were wearing nicker and baniyan only and who were in injured condition and were questioned by Mr.Dhande Saheb regarding the offenders and their associates. According to witness Nitin, he was asked to go to the back side of the Police Station. THEre, he had seen the crowd of policemen and also that the injured were taken to hospital. Latter, he came to know that, out of the two injured persons, one of them namely Begya Pawar has died. Thus, it is submitted that the person who could have actually seen the incident of assault by policemen did not say anything about it, while the person who could not have seen the incident being away at the 63 ft. or above distance and not in straight visible line from the spot, made a statement that he had seen the incident of assault made by police. Under these circumstances, it is also brought to my notice that F.I.R. No.452 of 2011 was lodged on 15.12.2011, u/ss.143, 294 and 506 by Mr.A.M.Dhande against Raju Sheshrao, Jangam, Sayabai, Savitribai, Kisan Sanjivanibai etc. for to take action against them as they had filthily abused police and threatened to throw chilly powder in their eyes and kill them. THE incident had happened at about 4 00 p.m. in the Court premises and copy of the complaint was sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. It is submitted that this complaint bearing F.I.R. No.452 of 2011 reported at Police Station, Washim was very important as the Investigating Officer claimed that test identification parade has been held after 15.12.2011, which cannot have any evidentiary value but a force even if it is assumed that there is identification by witnesses against whom a serious complaint was made.