BHAUSAHEB MARUTI KALANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were tried for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989, in Sessions Case No. 171 of 1997. At the conclusion of the said sessions trial, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" as per their original status in the sessions case) were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months by the impugned judgment and order dated 12-5-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amhednagar. The accused, however, have been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "atrocities Act"). The impugned judgment, conviction and sentence is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case were as follows :

(3.) The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The accused have filed written statement in their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from their defence of denial, according to the accused persons, deceased Subhash was indulging in money-lending. He had lent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to one Sunderbai Namdeo Kale. Deceased Subhash and his brother Satish (PW 2) were harassing Sunderabai on account of money transaction. The dispute between Sunderabai and deceased Subhash was amicably settled by the intervention of accused No. 1 Bhausaheb. At the time of the said settlement, accused No. 1 abused PW 2 Satish and assaulted him. Satish, since then, was having animus against the accused persons. One week prior to the incident there was quarrel between the deceased Subhash and his brother Satish (PW 2) and one Jamlaya Bhosale. At that time, deceased Subhash and PW2 satish were labouring under the belief that Jamlaya Bhosale was being supported by accused No. 1. According to the accused persons, this was the reason for PW 2 Satish to give false evidence against them. Deceased Subhash according to the accused persons, was a known thief in the area. There was a case against Subhash regarding attempted railway robbery. Many people from the village have filed cases against deceased Subhah. Deceased Subhash was suspecting that accused no. 1 used to give tips to the police. According to the accused persons, they have been falsely implicated in the case. They have no concern with deceased subhash. They have not borrowed any amount from deceased Subhash.