GOPAL RAMCHANDRA AJGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1977 arises out of a judgment and order recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, on 22nd September, 1976 in Sessions Case No. 245 of 1975.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that on or about 7th November, 1974, at about 11.00 p.m., an information was received by Jogeshwari Police Station that there were riots in Meghwadi area within its jurisdiction. On receipt of this information the duty officer, Sub-Inspector, Mohan Patil (P.W. 7) along with his staff rushed there. He was followed by Sub-Inspector Ramugrah Singh (P.W. 1) along with five police constables. Sometimes thereafter a commotion was heard at Idga Maidan. Therefore, Sub-Inspector Patil with wireless van went there and Sub-Inspector or Singh remained at the junction of Shamnagar and Meghwadi where trouble was going on. Further case of the prosecution is that at about 2.00 a.m. Sub-Inspector Singh heard further commotion coming from the side of Sayyed Ajgaralli Chawl near Nalla at Meghwadi. He, therefore, proceeded to that side and found that a chawl was burning and brick-bats and fire balls were being thrown at the chawl. He noticed a crowd of about 25/30 miscreants among whom the seven accused persons, who were prosecuted in this case, were present Sub-Inspector Singh and a police constable rushed at the crowd and Sub-Inspector caught hold of appellant No. 1-Gopal Ramchandra Ajgaonkar (accused No. 1) who was seen having a burning Mashal in his hand. Police Constable, Rajaram Shinde (P.W. 5) apprehended original accused No. 2 and the present appellant No. 2 Anant Daulat Palande-(accused No. 3). They were seen throwing stones at the chawl. Another police constable, Vithai Thorat (P.W. 3) caught hold of appellant No. 3-Bhagwan Vasudeo Bhogle (accused No. 4) and appellant No. 4-Anant Gangaram Rane-(accused No. 5). Still one more constable by name Sitaram Kapse (P.W. 4) apprehended accused Nos. 6 and 7 with whose case we are not concerned. Thereafter all these accused persons were brought to Jogeshwari Police Station where Sub-Inspector Singh lodged his First Information Report (Exh. 5). After some investigation was carried out, further investigation was handed over to D.C.B., CID. On completion of the investigation the seven accused persons were charge-sheeted in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on 18th March, 1975. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 3rd July, 1975 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bombay.

(3.) On these facts the learned trial Judge framed charges against seven accused persons that all of them, on or about 3-11-1974 at about 2.15 a.m. at Meghwadi, Jogeshwari, Bombay, along with 15/20 other unknown persons, were members of unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit an offence of mischief by fire to a dwelling house and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. They are further charged that at the same time and place and in the same transaction, they used force and violence, being members of unlawful assembly, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 was further charged that at the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction and in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, he committed mischief by fire to a dwelling house belonging to one Sayyed Ajgaralli and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 436 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 were further charged that at the same time and place, and in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they committed mischief by fire in respect of a dwelling house of the said Sayyed Ajgaralli by pelting stones and brick-bats and caused damage to the extent of Rs. 18,000/- or more and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 427 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence was that they were not present at the time of time of the alleged incident and were picked up from their huts.