AMARJITSINGH SARBATSINGH JOHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to judgment rendered by learned Additional sessions Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case no. 39/1993. By the impugned judgment, four appellants, named hereinabove, came to be convicted for offence punishable U/s. 307 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and have been each sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 (four) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) , in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months. In addition, appellant No. 1 Amarjitsing and appellant No. 4 Dilbarsing @ Gayani are further convicted for offence punishable U/s. 25 of the arms Act and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months. Undisputedly, appellant Amarjitsing was running a hotel called "johal" @ "nimbhaseth dhaba" in the outskirts of village Saukheda Hol. The hotel was situated on Nagpur - Mumbai highway No. VI. In the evening of 15-6-1992, informant (P. W. 6 Manindarsing) parked his truck vehicle bearing registration No. MP 23 B-4776 by side of the hotel. So also another vehicle No. MP-23-B-2506 driven by his maternal aunt's son (P. W. 7 Harjitsing) was parked near that hotel. Both of them along with cleaners of the truck vehicles visited the hotel to take their evening meals. The prosecution case is that there took place exchange of hot words between informant (P. W. Manindarsing) and waiter of the hotel. P. W. Manindarsing placed order for smashed single egg (Anda bhurji). The waiter declined saying that the eggs Bhurji could be of two eggs and order for bhurji of one egg cannot be accepted. Thereupon, P. W. Manindarsing expressed willingness to pay charges of two eggs. There took place exchange of hot words, abuses and ultimately it resulted into an assault mounted by the hotel owner and his servants (appellants) on informant P. W. Manindarsing. They assaulted him by means of swords and sticks. Appellant Amarjitsing and appellant Dilbarsing @ Gayani gave blows of sword on neck and near left ear of informant P. W. Manindarsing. When appellant Amarjitsing attempted to inflict another blow, informant Manindarsing caught hold of the sword by his hands. By that time, p. W. Harjitsing and others intervened. The injured-informant-was thereafter rushed to government Hospital after reporting the incident at Parola Police Station. The Medical officer noticed an incised wound on left portion of the neck, a contused wound on the left fronto parietal region of the skull and other three incised wounds on person of informant manindarsing. They were grievous injuries caused by some sharp object. Certain investigation was carried out by the Police. All the appellants were arrested. The sticks and swords were recovered from them. All of them were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable u/s. 307 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and under provisions of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) A Charge (Exh. 2) was framed against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty to the said Charge. They denied truth into the accusations. They pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the Criminal case at behest of informant - P. W. Manindarsing. It is suggested by the defence that informant P. W. Manindarsing demanded Narcotic substance (drug) at the relevant time. However, appellant amarjitsing refused to sell any intoxicant or narcotic substance. There took place fracas between them. The informant self-inflicted the injuries and thereafter got falsely framed the appellants in this case.

(3.) At trial, the prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses in support of its case. Out of these nine (9) witnesses, P. W. 6 Manindarsing is the informant who lodged F. I. R. (Exh. 30) in the relevant evening at Parola Police Station. P. W. 7 Harjitsing claims to be eye-witness of the incident and P. W. 8 Dr. Bhanudas is the medical Officer attached to Cottage Hospital at Parola. These three are the main witnesses. The remaining witnesses are Panchas, carrier of sample packets and Muddemal packets to the office of the Chemical Analyser and the investigating Officer. The learned Sessions judge relied upon the testimonies of the informant and the eye-witnesses. He held that the appellants committed the alleged offences and sentenced them, therefore, as stated at the outset.