STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMSAI SUKHLAL YADAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - State, seeks to challenge the judgment of acquittal of the respondent in Sessions Case No. 247/1986 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, dated 23. 8. 1990 of the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 120 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the respondents, were thus. Complainant (P. W. 1) Shakuntala Shivprasad was residing in Ramai Nagar in the year 1986 i. e. at the time of incident with her sons Mohan (P. W. 2) , Manoj (P. W. 11) and Vinod (deceased) amongst others. Respondent no. 1,2,4 and 5 were also residing in the vicinity of her house in the same locality. Respondent no. 3 is brother of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 6 and 7 were residing at Yadao Bhavan in the same locality at the relevant time. Deceased Vinod was doing the work of driving Auto Rickshaw. It is alleged that he had developed love affair with one Meena who is daughter of one Shankar Yadao i. e. father of respondent no. 4. About 25 days prior to the date of incident, on one night said Meena had visited the house of the complainant P. W. 1 Chandrakala. She had asked her to leave the house and go to her parents. She left the house, however, she had gone to her friend's house. It is alleged that respondent no. 3 had then lodged report against deceased Vinod. Police had called deceased Vinod, P. W. 1 Chandrakala and P. W. 2 Mohan to police station for enquiry. It is alleged that respondents were also there at the relevant time and they had threatened P. W. 1 Chandrakala saying that she had not done good thing and they would take revenge. On 6. 7. 1986 i. e. on the day of incident, deceased Vinod had left the house at 9. 00 a. m. Thereafter, he did not return till about 8. 00 p. m. At that time P. W. 11 Manoj had gone out for some work and while returning, near the pan shop of P. W. 10 Arun Khandekar, he found respondents (accused) beating deceased Vinod with sticks. He then rushed to the home and informed his mother about the incident. P. W. 1 Chandrakala immediately ran towards the spot of incident followed by P. W. 2 Mohan. She noticed all the respondents, beating Vinod with sticks and he was lying on the road. P. W. 2 Mohan, when reached to the spot of incident found respondent no. 1,2, 6 and 7 running away. It is alleged that these respondents, had come to beat him also. At that time, P. W. 13 P. I. Beldar who had come in jeep to the spot of incident on receiving telephonic message, that 3-4 milkmen were assaulting a person near the house of one Khandekar and that person was lying unconscious. P. W. 1 Chandrakala and deceased who was then lying unconscious were taken in police jeep to Mayo Hospital. Thereafter P. W. 1 Chandrakala went to police station and lodged report (Ex. 45). Respondent no. 2 and 6 were arrested on that very night. Respondent no. 3 who was in police station was also arrested. Some time thereafter, P. I. Beldar P. W. 13 came to know that Vinod had expired in the hospital, so he took necessary station diary entry and under his direction P. W. 12 PSI Sakharkar drew inquest Panchnama Ex. 25, dead body was sent for P. M. examination, P. W. 5 Dr. Deuskar conducted P. M. Examination on 7. 7. 1986. Postmortem Report mentioning about 37 external injuries and some internal injuries found on the person of deceased is at Ex. 27. P. W. 13 P. S. I. Beldar had drawn the spot Panchnama Ex. 48. He had also seized certain articles. During the investigation, clothes of the deceased were seized and produced by P. C. Sahebrao as per Ex. 24. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. P. W. 4 Ramlal had produced two pieces of sticks which were found on the heap of manure in front of his house. These sticks were seized under different memorandums and seizure Panchnamas, allegedly at the instance of the respondents. Seized muddemal was sent for C. A. 's report and Ex. 31 C. A. report was received. After due investigation P. W. 13 PSI Beldar submitted the charge sheet.

(3.) Case was in turn committed to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for the aforesaid offences against the respondents. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the same. Their defence is that of total denial and according to them on the basis of suspicion and suspicion only they are involved in the offence.