GULAM KADAR GULAM RASUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the committal order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda, committing the petitioners-accused to stand their trial for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 330 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Dhule.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Gona Padvi was working as a watchman in a field. On 30th August, 1981, at about 7.00 p.m., Gona Padvi was returning with his wife, Banabai from the field to village Khapar, Taluka Akkalkuka, District Dhule. When they came near a Government godown, seven to eight persons, including the present petitioners accosted them and questioned them as to who committed the theft of banana plantation. When Gona Padvi feigned ignorance, he was assaulted by all the seven-eight persons. On hearing the shouts raised by Banabai, some relatives came there and thereafter Gona was taken to the house of Imalibai. On 7th September, 1981 he was taken to the Medical Officer, Khapar. But as the injuries were of a minor nature, he was admitted as an out-door patient, and after giving some treatment, he was sent home. It appears that Gona again developed pain and he died.

(3.) On the facts stated above, charge was framed against the accused and they were committed to Sessions Court. The petitioners preferred a revision application against the committal order in the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after observing that the committal order should not be mechanical order, and referring to the decision in the case of (Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan) A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 1780, and to the case of this Court in (Dr. Dattatraya Samant v. State of Maharashtra) 1981 Criminal Law Journal 1819, further observed that for the purpose of constituting an offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be shown that the death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused. It was further observed, "assuming that death was due to tuberculosis and heart failure, the question is whether it was accelerated by the act of the accused and there are some grounds to infer that it might have been accelerated by the act of the accused and if reasonable view is possible and if the trial Court has taken the same, I do not think that it invites revisional interference." On this ground the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision application. Against the said order, the present application has been preferred by the petitioners.