DATTATRYA LIMBAJI TARU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona, who has affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) On 5th November 1975 at about 10-00 p. m Hari (P. W. 1) and Rama (P.W. 2) who are brothers heard some shouts and, therefore they went out of their hoase to Dargah Square, They saw Sudam Patil Quarrelling. Hari (P. W. 1) tried to separate them) Accused No. 1 Dattatraya addressed Hari (P. W. 1) as "Chemcha" and asked him why he was intervening in the quar el. Rama (P.W. 2) asked accused No. 1 Dattatraya not to abused. Accused No. 1 Dattatraya, thereafter, went to his house and came back with his two sons, accused No. 2 Balu and .Ashok juvenile offender. Accused No. 1 Dattatraya was armed with a sickle, while accused No: 2 Balu had an iron bar and Ashok carried a pointed steel rod in his hand, They assaulted Hari (P. W. 1) and Rama (P. W. 2) with the sickle and the rod. A sister of the complainant then went to the police Station to file a complaint and the accused ran away before the police arrived, After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused and the juvenile offender for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Cdoe.

(3.) Charges under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused The charges were read over and explained to them. The accused denied to have commitied the offences, The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses out of which four witnesses, viz; Hari (P. W. 1), Rama (P. W. 2), Sadanand (P. W. 4) and Balu Kamble (P. W. 5) claimed to be the eye-witnesses. The prosecution also examined Dr. Deshpande (p. w. 8) who had examined the injuried person.