CHINTAMAN RAJARAM KHARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these appeals arise out of common judgment, they are being disposed of together.

(2.) ALL the six appellants in both the connected criminal appeals were convicted under sections 147 I. P. C. , 452 and 324 I. P. C. read with section 149 I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo 4 months, 6 months and 8 months rigorous imprisonment respectively. In addition, appellants Chintaman Rajaram Kharkar, Trimbak Shimgya Mokashi, Ashok Harishchandra Mokashi and Kiran Trimbak Mokashi were convicted under section 142 I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences of the appellants were directed to run concurrently. The aforesaid convictions and sentences of the appellants were recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 262/1986 vide order dated 4-2-1988.

(3.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the informant Chandrakant, P. W. 1 and Vitthal P. W. 2 are real brothers. They reside in Village Vitawa, Koliwada, Taluka and District Thane. The appellants are also said to be the residents of the same village. It is alleged that they had jointly purchased a video which had been stolen away and a complaint of theft had been lodged at Rabale Police Station. In pursuance of that complaint, P. W. 1 Chandrakant is said to have been arrested but later on acquitted. On this score, relations between the complainant and others on one side and the appellants on the other are said to be sour. On 26-9-1985, at about 9. 30 p. m. complainant Chandrakant P. W. 1 had gone to take darshan of Ganpati idol at the house of one Nandkumar Patil of his village. It is said that a large number of persons including the appellants and deceased-accused Girinath, had also assembled there. It is alleged that after darshan, when Chandrakant was about to leave the house, appellant Chintaman caught hold of him and asked him to return the video which be had stolen and threatened him that, in case, he did not do the same, he would be beaten. Later on an alteration on account of this challenge of Chintaman is alleged to have taken place between Chintaman and Chandrakant and it ultimately exploded into a scuffle. It is alleged that all the appellants rushed towards Chandrakant, who, on seeing them ran to his house, which was situated nearby. It is said that the appellants chased him inside his house. It is also stated that appellants Chintamani Trimbak and deceased-accused Girinath were armed with knives. Appellant Ashok had an iron rod and appellant Kiran had a dagger in his hand. The allegation is that the deceased-accused Girinath inflicted one knife blow an the abdomen of Chandrakant and another knife blow on his chest. It is said that, he made a third attempt to inflict a knife blow on Chandrakant but he warded of the same by raising his arms. The allegation is that the appellant Ashok gave a blow with iron rod on the right shoulder of Vitthal and appellant Vishvanath assaulted him by a stick on his head. One Suresh is also said to have received injuries in the incident. After assaulting Chandrakant and others, the appellants are said to have run away.