BALASAHEB VASUDEO LIGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against conviction of the appellants by the learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli for offences punishable under Sections 436, 435, 427, 295, 336, 342, 353, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentences ranging from six months to seven years imposed upon them for various offences by the learned Judge on conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No. 224 of 1999 before him. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:

(2.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charged all the 104 accused persons of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Sections 147, 148, 307, 427, 435, 323, 336, 452, 436, 395, 295, 342, 353, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 21 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence raised by the accused persons, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the 27 appellants for various offences, as aforementioned. He acquitted the remaining accused persons. Aggrieved by their conviction, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The appellants had preferred an application for bail pending the hearing of this appeal. The Bail Application bearing No. 957 of 2011 came to be disposed of by order dated 12-8-2011. The order elaborately considers the evidence tendered. The persons, whose houses were set on fire, were not examined as witnesses. In spite of allegation of rioting on such a large scale, only two persons were shown to have been injured in the rioting and these injuries were certified by PW-16 Dr. Dilip Jadhav as minor. PWs-1, 2, 5, 6 and 14 are the only eye-witnesses and their evidence was inconsistent. After going through the entire evidence it was found that except for appellant No. 15 Shivaji Eknath Patil, in respect of whom there was evidence of two witnesses, PWs-1 and 14, the others were entitled to bail.