CHANDIDAS SAHADEO SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE incident in question took place on the 8th of April, 1984 at about 3. 30 p. m. at Gandhi Chowk, Igatpuri. The incident gave raise to the lodging of two counter complaints, one being C. R. No. 24 of 1984 and the other C. R. No. 25 of 1984 of the Igatpuri Police Station. The aforesaid complaints gave rise to two Sessions Cases. C. R. No. 24 of 1984 gave rise to Sessions Case No. 175 of 1985 and C. R. No. 25 of 1984 give rise to Sessions Case No. 137 of 1985. In Sessions Case No. 137 of 1985, 14 accused were prosecuted, whereas in Sessions Case No. 175 of 1985, 30 accused were prosecuted. The present appeal arises out of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the 9th of May, 1986 in Sessions Case No. 137 of 1985 wherein accused Nos. 1 to 8 and 13 are convicted under sections 147, 148, 149, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 325 the aforesaid convicted accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence under sections 147, 148 and 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The said order of conviction and sentence is impugned in the present appeal. As far as the counter case being Sessions Case No. 175 of 1985 is concerned, the same was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who, by his judgment and order dated the 26th of December, 1986 has acquitted all the 30 accused in that trial.

(2.) IT cannot be disputed that the relations between the accused on the one side and the prosecution witnesses on the other, were strained. The accused and the prosecution witnesses are related to each other and there were disputes in respect of property rights. This is reflected in the First Information Report (Ext. 38) which was lodged by P. W. 4. , Ashabai. The incident in question has taken place at about 3. 00 or 3. 30 p. m. The first information report (Ext. 38) has, however, been filed belatedly at about 8. 00 p. m. though the police station is located at a short distance from the place of the incident. Though the complaint makes a mention of the strained relations curiously Ashabai in her evidence has declined to admit that the relations were strained and she had accordingly stated so in the complaint. The complaint lodged by accused No. 1 was lodged prior in point of time. Ashabai has sought to give an explanation regarding the delay in lodging her complaint. She has stated that she could not go to the Police Station because the police had passed an order under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the roads had been closed. According to her, the police came in their vehicles and took them to the police station at about 8. 00 p. m. The explanation which is offered, appears to be an after-thought as no material is placed on record that any order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued. If the accused No. 1 could lodge his complaint soon after the incident, I see no good reason why Ashabai could not have lodged her complaint earlier in point of time. The possibility of Ashabai loading her complaint as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by accused No. 1 cannot be reasonably ruled out.

(3.) ANOTHER striking feature in respect of the prosecution evidence is that accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 sustained injuries at the time of the incident. The injuries sustained by accused No. 1 can be noticed in the panchanama (Ext. 24 ). The injuries of accused No. 5 are reflected in the medical case papers (Ext. 43 ). The injuries to accused Nos. 3 and 4 are deposed to by P. W. 6 Harbans. None of the prosecution witnesses which include the injured witnesses and the eye-witnesses explaining how these accused sustained injuries. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the genesis of the incident in question cannot be relied upon. This is particularly so because the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses. They alongwith their companions were facing a prosecution in a counter case filed by accused No. 1. The details as to how the incident in question started are vital for judging the complicity of the accused. This vital part of the evidence is missing in the present case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, becomes suspect and no reliance can be placed on their evidence so as to make out a case for convicting the accused.