ANIKET Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals have been filed under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities Act"). The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2023 is accused No.9, whereas the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2023 is original accused No.7 in Crime No.195 of 2022 registered with CIDCO Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 , 143 , 147 , 148 , 120(B) , 201 , 114 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. They both had filed applications under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure below Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-04 in Sessions Case No.317 of 2022. Both the applications came to be rejected on 6/10/2022. Hence, the present appeals.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Ladda for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.514 of 2023, learned Advocate Mr. K. R. Doke holding for learned Advocate Mr. Rahul Ashok Shinde for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.398 of 2023, learned APP Mr. A. M. Phule for respondent No.1 - State in both the appeals and learned Advocate Mr. Moinpasha Shaikh Farid holding for learned Advocate Mr. A. L. Kanade for respondent No.2 in both the appeals.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of both the appellants that now the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed before the learned Special Judge. Initially, when the charge-sheet was filed, it appears that it was only under Indian Penal Code Ss. and later on the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act came to be added. Therefore, when the charge-sheet is filed, the further physical custody of the appellants is not necessary. The prosecution story is that deceased Manoj, who was employed with one Kharat was maintaining a cultural hall by name Meghawale Sabhagruha. He used to reside in one room in the said hall. When he had gone to meet his mother i.e. informant respondent No.2 on 20/4/2022, he informed that he has been removed from the work. According to the informant one Satish Khare along with 5-6 persons came to her house around 3.00 p.m. on 20/4/2022 and took Manoj with them. Thereafter, when informant and her another son Bharat were at Shendra, they received a video in which it could be seen that Manoj was tied and he was being assaulted. Therefore, they took search for Manoj. They also came to know that the persons who were assaulting Manoj were one Satish Khare, Anand Solas, Anand Gaikwad, Sagar Kharat and Ashtpal Gawai and three persons working with Satish Khare. Ashtpal Gawai is said to have admitted Manoj in Ghati Hospital in unconscious state. Learned Advocate appearing for accused No.9 - Aniket vehemently submitted that his name is not appearing in the FIR. No role has been attributed to him and his identification has not been held. Learned Advocate for accused No.7 - Ashtpal Gawai submitted that the video transcript has been given and it shows that accused No.7 had not participated. According to the alleged eye witness Shubham Navture, one Shubham Tupe had videographed the incident and he himself says that he also took the video but by concealing the mobile and then he says that the said video was shared by him to one Bawaskar, but in the statement under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is saying that he had deleted the said video. Then the question arises as to how the police had recovered the said video. If the transcript is seen, then the identification is not that of accused No.7. The learned Trial Judge has not considered the evidence on record and went on to consider that the widow of the deceased has received threats and, therefore, the application was rejected, which is illegal. The appellants are ready to abide by the terms of the bail.