BAMU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 15/2011 for the offences punishable under sections 307 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the conviction u/s. 307 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one-and-a-half year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the conviction of offence punishable u/s. 353 of I.P.C. The appellant feels aggrieved by the said judgment on the ground that the judgment is based on the evidence which was not at all reliable. Most of the eye witnesses in this case are Police Officers. The alleged attack was on the Police Officers. Before I proceed to appreciate the arguments submitted on behalf of the appellant and the respondent-State, let me briefly state as to what led to the prosecution of the appellant for the said offences. The complainant in this case was working as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhamragarh in Gadchiroli District. The alleged incident had occurred on 4th July, 2010. The complainant was on patrolling duty on 4th July, 2010. He was accompanied by a C-60 team, headed by Commander Rama Kudiyami and the police personnel belonging to Special Action Force. In all, there were 150 Jawans in the team headed by the complainant. The police party headed by the complainant started from Nargunda village. At about 2.00 p.m., the police party was in the forests of Pidimili and Paddur. The appellant was found concealing himself behind a tree. He was having a handgun known as 'Bharmar'. The police party headed by complainant asked the appellant to surrender. The appellant instead of surrendering before the Police had allegedly fired a shot from the said gun directed towards the police party. Thereafter, the appellant tried to run away from the spot taking advantage of thick forest. He was chased and was caught. The F.I.R. was lodged at Bhamragarh Police Station for the offences punishable u/ss. 307 and 353 of I.P.C. on 4th July, 2010 at about 17.00 hours. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Almost all witnesses are from the police party headed by the complainant. Bharmar Gun was sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser had reported that Bharmar Gun was a single barrel muzzle loading Gun in working condition. The residues of fired Gun powder were detected in the barrel washings of said Gun, indicating thereby that the Gun was used for firing before it was received in the Laboratory. Few percussion caps from Laboratory stock were successfully test fired through the said Gun indicating thereby that the Gun was in a working condition. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant.

(2.) Charge was framed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge for the above said two offences, so also for the offence punishable under section 25(1-B)(a) read with 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had in all examined seven witnesses in support of its case. PW 1-Sunil Borekar is the Police Constable; PW 2-Vijaykant Sagar is the complainant who was working as Sub-Divisional Police Officer at the time of the incident. PW 3-Rama was working as a policeman in C-60 force; PW 4-Arun is police constable of C-60 force. PW 5-Babarao Avachar was working as P.S.I. of Bhamragarh Police Station. PW 6 was Additional District Magistrate who had granted sanction for prosecution of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act. PW 7-Shankar is the Constable who had carried the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

(3.) The most important witness in this case is PW 2-Vijaykant, who was the most responsible Police Officer in the team, heading the team of 150 jawans. He has stated in his evidence that he along with other members were on patrolling duty and on 4th July, 2010. While they were in the jungle of Pidimili and Paddur, one person was noticed to have concealed himself behind a tree around two o'clock in the afternoon. The PW 2 had asked that person to surrender. The said person refused to oblige and fired at PW 2. The police party also fired in retaliation. That person therefore wanted to run away from the spot. The area was cordoned off and the said person was apprehended. He was taken to Bhamragarh Police Station. His personal search resulted in recovery of one knife from his pocket. The FIR was lodged by PW 2 and his report is at Exh. 13 and printed FIR is at Exh. 14. Bharmar Gun and knife were seized by the police under the seizure memo Exhs. 15.