ANANTA JANARDAN PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prosecution case was that on 26th May, 2001 at 4.00 p.m. in front of the house of one Dnyaneshwar Patil at Village Valkan, Tal. District Thane when the deceased Ananta Bhoir was returning in an auto rickshaw, his auto rickshaw was forced to stop by putting in front another auto rickshaw driven by accused No. 7. The auto rickshaw carried two persons other than Ananta Bhoir by name Ratan Mhatre and Ananta Balku Kharpatil. It was being driven by one Balkrishna Keshav Patil. 4 to 5 persons came out of the other auto rickshaw which stopped the auto of the deceased. About 20 to 22 other persons were hiding behind the nearby cactus and all these persons were armed with swords, iron rods, sickles, knives and all of them mercilessly attacked Ananta Bhoir and caused him grevious injuries on all parts of his body. On the basis of these allegations, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and were tried. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses. The trial Court by its judgment dated 21st February, 2003 convicted accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23,24 and 25 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under different sections and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 149 with 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) When these appeals came to be listed before a Bench of this Court for final hearing on 22nd February, 2007, the Court was of an impression that a full and complete attempt to arrive at the truth had not been made by the prosecution. Therefore, the Court passed an order under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing recording of statements of five witnesses who had been cited as witnesses but whose statements had not been recorded as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court had given up these witnesses. This Court also directed examination of Investigating Officer PW 15. The matter was remanded back to the trial Court. The trial Court has recorded the statement as per the order of the High Court and has also recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the matter has come back for hearing.

(3.) At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that out of 15 witnesses originally examined by the prosecution, PW1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 were projected as eye witnesses and these witnesses had not deposed anything against the accused which could justify their conviction. He further submitted that even the finding by this Court in its order dated 22nd February, 2007 was that the prosecution had not brought the whole truth before the Court. Now in addition to these witnesses, the prosecution has also examined after remand another 5 witnesses. So in all there are 9 alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence and according to the learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons, on the basis of testimony of all the 9 witnesses, the prosecution would not succeed.