STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHANKAR KHELU BATAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Appeals relate to the same incident. In both these Appeals, two groups of parties are concerned. One is called the Sarpanch Party (SP) and the other is called as Police Patil Party (PPP). Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1990 concerns itself with the Police Patil Group as the Accused. There are ten Accused in this case, out of which Accused No.6 is said to have expired on 9.11.2005. The Appeal against Accused No.6 has abated. There are 25 Accused in Appeal No.417 of 1990, out of whom the Appeal is being prosecuted against the first 11 Accused only.

(2.) In the Trial Court, the two cases against the aforesaid two parties were tried one after another. In the case under Appeal No.382 of 1990, eight witnesses have been examined. In the case under Appeal No.417 of 1990, ten witnesses have been examined. The essential charge in both these cases is under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the cases have ended in acquittal.

(3.) The State has challenged the judgment of acquittal in these cases under the aforesaid Appeals. It may be mentioned that since the same incident resulted in two criminal complaints filed by one of the members of the aforesaid two groups each, the allegations made and the statement s recorded were of several witnesses stated to be eye witnesses who deposed as to the incident with regard to a number of persons, most of whom were carrying deadly weapons. It is, therefore, for the prosecution to show and prove the specific overt act by each one of the Accused in both the groups. Consequently, specified roles have to be assigned to each of the Accused. If that is not done, benefit of doubt would have to be given to the Accused. Consequently, in such Appeals, the prosecution must show a very striking and clear evidence of overt act or role played by a specific Accused which has been not correctly considered by the learned Trial Court. Failure to that extent must result in dismissal of the Appeals.