KESHAV RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge Billoli in Special Case No. 21/2000 thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default R. I. for one month, further convicting them for the offence punishable under section 147 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default R. I. for seven days, also convicting for the offence punishable under section 148 of I. P. C. and sentencing them to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default R. I. for 15 days and also convicting them for the offence punishable under section 143 of I. P. C.

(2.) The prosecution case in nut shell is as under; THE deceased Dat tu S/o Santuka Suryawanshi and all the accused are resident of village Shilvani Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. Dat tu was the village Kotwal at the relevant time. It is prosecution case that on 26th January, 1993 on account of Republic day Dat tu had gone to the office of Grampanchayat of village Shilvani for Flag Hoisting. His wife complainant Gangubai and daughter Phulubai were present in the house. On that day at about 01. 00 p. m. Gangubai came to know that near the Flag post accused No. 3 Venkat i Hadole told Dat tu that he is dealing in tricks of black magic (Bhanamat i) to the village women. Said Venkat i took Dat tu to the shop of accused No. 1 Keshav. It is further prosecution case that after the receipt of informat ion Phulubai went in the village towards her fat her i. e. Dat tu. THE complainant thereafter informed about the same to her brother-in-law Ranba. THEreafter Ranba told the complainant that let the villagers do what they want to do and she should remain in the home. After some time Phulubai came back to the home. It is prosecution case that thereafter the accused Keshav assaulted Dat tu by stick and rest of the accused beat Dat tu by kicks and blows. It is further prosecution case that at about4. 00 p. m. all the accused brought Dat tu beat ing to his home by tying his both hands on his back. It is alleged that the accused were insisting that Dat tu should take out Dolls from his house which were used for tricks of black magic. All the accused entered the house of the deceased and took search of the Doll. It is alleged that thereafter the accused again took Dat tu to the village. It is further prosecution case that due to fear the complainant and her daughter stayed at home. It is further case of the prosecution that on the same day at about6. 00 p. m. accused again brought Dat tu to his home. At that time they there were injuries on his both calf. THE accused No. 3 Venkat and Manohar applied Turmeric powder on the injuries. That time all the accused asked Dat tu to change the blood stained Dhoti. Another Dhoti was given to Dat u and he was made to wear it. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused directed Complainant Gangabai to wash the blood stained Dhoti. After that all the accused took Dat tu to the village. On the next dat e i. e. on 27th January, 1993 at morning the complainant Gangabai came to know that Dat tu committed suicide by hanging himself to a Tamrind tree near village. Intimat ion was given by the Police Pat il to Markhel Police Stat ion. Accordingly accidental deat h came to be registered as A. D. No. 1/1993. Dead body was taken to the Rural Hospital where post-mortem was conducted. In the post-mortem the Medical Officer opined cause of deat h as "asphexia due to hanging" and ante mortem injuries over both legs and scrotum were also noticed.

(3.) Initially the trial court framed charge under Section s 143, 147, 148, 365, 448, 306 r/w 149 of I. P. C. , Sec. 7 (1) (d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Subsequently additional charge under section 302 r/w 149 of I. P. C. was also framed. The charges were read over to the accused. The accused pleased not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.