KISAN Vs. NAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the original informant under Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 9 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli on 24/7/2019 in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2012 from the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 302, 201, 364, 120(B) read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. G. Godhamgaonkar for the appellant and learned APP Mr. S. D. Ghayal for respondent No.10 - State at the time of admission. We have gone through the record and proceedings.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the original informant that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly. The prosecution had led evidence to prove that deceased Sopan Dhok, father of the appellant had gone to village Paheni on 31/3/2012 to meet his maternal uncle and thereafter he went to Warud (Samad) to meet his brother-in-law and stayed there overnight. He then left around 8.00 a.m. on 1/4/2012 for his return journey to Akola. He went to Pusegaon bus stand where he met his paternal uncle and brother-in-law around 9.30 a.m. There he was kidnapped by accused Namdev, Trimbak, Bhanudas, Dnyanoba and Jaijairam. They had tied the hands of deceased Sopan and made him to sit on motorcycle forcibly. They took him at a distance, strangulated him and then set him to fire. The evidence that was placed was in respect of persons witnessing the abduction of deceased from the S.T. bus stand. In fact, when such incident takes place in a public place, then proper weightage ought to have been given to the evidence led in the form of examining eye witnesses. They were the persons, who had seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused lastly. Thereafter, when the accused Parasram and Dnyanoba showed the spot of incident i.e. agricultural land of accused No.2 situated at Maherkheda where there were ashes, burn pieces of bone and teeth were found. In fact, all the accused were present at the spot and they had assaulted Sopan. Though incident has taken place in the broad day light and Sopan was abducted, the learned Trial Judge ought to have given proper weightage to the testimony of eye witnesses. The scrutiny of evidence is not proper and, therefore, interference is required by admitting the appeal.