RAGHUNATH RAMKRISHNA SUSHIR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 24-03-2003 delivered in Sessions Case No.85 of 1999 by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 days each. The learned trial Judge further convicted all the accused under Section 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five days each. All the accused are further convicted under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 days each.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P.B. Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mrs. S.Z. Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the record of the case and the impugned judgment and order. The learned Counsel for the appellants/accused vehemently argued that the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and perverse to the extent that the learned Judge had failed to consider the testimony of the witnesses in right perspective, as the alleged eye witnesses had resiled from their evidence before the Court and during the cross examination a new case has been brought up by the witnesses; particularly Sumanbai (PW-2) that the accused persons assaulted by 'iron pinch' instead of stick. He further submitted that, in fact, there was a scuffle in between the witnesses and the accused persons. In the said incident, they also received the injuries and a cross case was lodged against the witnesses by the appellants. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that since there was enmity between the witnesses PW-2, PW-9 and Kashinath and the accused persons, a false case has been filed against the accused persons. He submitted that Gajanan Sushir (original accused no.8) had lodged complaint against Kashinath who was the husband of PW-2. However, he expired before the commencement of trial and therefore the case against Kashinath stood abated. According to Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellants, all the accused are entitled for acquittal.