DATTATRAYA MANGLYA PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 21-2-1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 442/1987, convicting and sentencing them, in the manner stated hereinafter :---

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as under :---The informant Eknath Bhoir P. W. 1 was the brother of the deceased Anant Bhoir. The two brothers used to live in a house in village Shirvane, Taluka and District Thane along with their sisters Shobha Bhoir and Aruna Bhoir and their mother Vitthabai, Gitabai Bhoir, the wife of Anant Bhoir used to also live in the same house. Out of the appellants, Dattatraya Patil, Prabhakar Patil and Balram Patil, are said to be real brothers. The appellants Ashok Jadhav and Hira Patil, are alleged to be friends of Dattatraya Patil and his brothers. From the evidence of the informant Eknath Bhoir, it appears that shortly before the incident, the appellants Dattatraya, Prabhakar and Balram had purchased a truck in partnership with him. The said truck was used in the transport business. It appears that the partnership between informant and the said appellants, did not work out and consequently, the former gave the appellant, Dattatraya Rs. 13,000/- and dissolved the partnership. Evidence is that the informant and the deceased had a beer bar. The appellants, Dattatraya Prabhakar and Balram used to visit the said beer bar and profess that monies earned from the partnership in connection with the truck, had been utilised in opening the beer bar. They used to threaten the informant and the deceased that they would not allow them to run the beer bar. The said threats were to the extent that they would ensure that Anant Bhoir did not survive. It is said that the other two appellants, namely Ashok Jadhav and Hira Patil were friends of Dattatraya and others and used to keep their company. On 28-2-1987, at about 7 a. m. the informant Eknath Bhoir went to answer the call of nature in an open place situated towards the east of his house and the railway track. While he was returning towards his house, after answering the call of nature, he met Chandrakant Sutar, P. W. 5 who asked him to halt and enquired whether Anant had come back to the house. Eknath asked him the reason for his so asking and on that he replied that he had seen a person like Anant lying on a rock beside the lake. Consequently, the informant rushed towards the house and when he did not find his brother there, he along with his family members rushed towards the lake. On the right side of the lake, he saw Anant was lying injured. Anant was unable to speak. When he called him, he did not respond. There were extensive injuries on his head, shoulders and stomach, and blood was gushing out therefrom. Seeing his brother in that condition, Eknath started shouting. Thereafter, he and his family members removed Anant to their house. On the way, Eknath met Pandurang Ghadge, P. W. 2 and asked him to bring a taxi. Pandurang Ghadge brought a taxi at the house of the informant Eknath. On the said taxi, the informant, Anant and other members of the family proceeded to Navjeevan Hospital. At the said Hospital, the doctors declared Anant to be dead. Thereafter, with the corpse of his brother, Anant, Eknath came to Turbhe Police Station.

(3.) THE F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Eknath Bhoir, the same day at 8. 55 a. m. at the Turbhe Police Station. It was recorded by P. S. I. Narayan Upasanik, P. W. 9. He registered a case under section 302 r/w 34 I. P. C. on the basis of the F. I. R. It is significant to point out that in the F. I. R. , neither the appellants nor the other two co-accused namely Sainath and Santosh are nominated.