RAMESHSING KHANSING BAWRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initially for quashing the First Information Report (for short "the FIR") vide Crime No.126 of 2023 dtd. 15/4/2023 registered with Manwat Police Station, District-Parbhani and later on for quashing the charge- sheet bearing R.C.C. No. 160 of 2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manwat, District-Parbhani for the offence punishable under Ss. 304, 323, 143, 147, 149, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salunke for the applicants, learned APP Mr. Kulkarni for State and learned Advocate Mr. Chetan Jadhav appointed to represent the cause of respondent No.2.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us through the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet. He submits that the informant is a 15 years old boy, who has stated that around 8.30 p.m. on 14/4/2023, he was proceeding towards his house from main road, Manwat. When he was near a statue, at that time applicant No.11 Bhagatsing and applicant No.12 Pawansing had assaulted him, unnecessarily, therefore, he went running to the house of his uncle Harjeetsing. He then says that thereafter he himself and his uncle went to Pathri Naka, where all the applicants were present. Out of them, applicant No.1 Rameshsing and applicant No.2 Aayasing started quarreling with his uncle Harjeetsing. The informant and his uncle were giving understanding to them and since the uncle was having problem of blood pressure and sugar (diabetes), they were requesting not to quarrel. The informant says that though the applicants were knowing the physical condition of Harjeetsing, yet applicant Nos.1 and 2 started abusing and threatening his uncle. His uncle's blood pressure shoot up and he fell down and then all of the accused fled. Then the informant called his relatives and took his uncle to Dagdu hospital. But then the doctor told that the uncle should be taken to Government Hospital, Manwat. At Government Hospital, the uncle of the informant was declared dead. The postmortem was conducted and it was opined that Harjeetsing expired due to heart attack. The postmortem report is now collected and is part of the charge-sheet, which shows that there was no external injury to the deceased. The final cause of death is "death due to cardio- respiratory failure due to acute myocardial infarction." The applicants by no stretch of imagination had any intention, even if for the sake of arguments there was some interaction between them and deceased, that their action would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or in other words, there was any intention in the mind of the applicants to cause death of deceased Harjeetsing. In fact other applicants have not even said anything nor touched the deceased. Only presence cannot be considered as by way of common object or as a common intention.