STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JALINDHAR RAMCHANDRA PISAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant-State of Maharashtra is challenging the judgment and order dated 28.1.85 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Session Case No. 36/84. By the said judgment, all the respondents - original accused nos. 1 to 30 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 302 read with 149 IPC and 325 and 342 read with 149 of IPC. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under :-

(2.) ALL the respondents i.e. original accused had been charged for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 302 read with 149 IPC and 325 and 342 read with section 149 of IPC for having formed unlawful confinement and murder of Dilip Eknath Bhosale (deceased) and for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 18 Vinayak Pandurang Nikalage and P.W. 19 Sadhu Londhe and P.W. 12 Shankar Bhosale in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly on 25.5.83 at about 3.00 p.m. near the S.T. stand at Barad. Immediately before the above incident P.W.12 Shankar Ambaji Bhosale (complainant), P.W. 18 Vinayak Nikalaje, P.W. 19 Sadhu Londhe, Dilip Eknath Bhosale (deceased) and one Namdeo Shankar Londhe are alleged to have consumed alcohol and under the influence of drink, they assaulted the present respondent no. 1 Jalindhar Pisal and robbed the wrist watch of Jalindhar. The abovesaid 5 persons are further alleged to have assaulted respondent no. 27 - Vasant Kamble and have thereafter behaved in disorderly manner and created commotion at the Panpatti shop of P.W. 11 Ramjan Mulani. In that respect, the said 5 persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 395,336 read with 149 and 504 read with 149 IPC vide Session Case No. 22/84.

(3.) THE case was committed to the court of Sessions in the usual manner. The charge was framed against all the respondents under section 147, 148, 342 read with 149 and 325 and 302 of IPC read with 149 of IPC. The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondents is that of total denial Through their suggestions to the prosecution witnesses and statements under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the defence appears to be that the passengers present at the Barad S.T. stand and some unknown persons of the village had gathered at the S.T. stand and they might have chased and assaulted the deceased and the injured persons.