RUPESH SALGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal appeal No.20 of 2017 is at the instance of the lone accused who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC amongst others while the Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2017 is by the State challenging the conviction of the lone accused No.1 Rupesh under Section 304 Part I IPC and praying for a conviction under Section 302 IPC amongst others and besides seeking a reversal of the judgment of acquittal qua the accused Nos.2 to 14 and a conviction under Section 302 IPC r/w. Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 504, 323 r/w. 149 IPC. The parties would hereinafter be referred to as the State and the accused for brevity's sake.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution that sometime on 20/01/2013 at 00.15 hours at Bailoyee, Tisk, Dando Siolim all the accused persons No.1 to 14 hatched a criminal conspiracy acting in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like hammer etc. and assaulted the complainant Nilesh Pomburpekar and his friends with kicks and fist blows thereby causing injuries to them, abused them with filthy words over the issue of the erection of the shed at Matarajeshwar Devasthan, Dando and furthermore the accused no.1 Rupesh assaulted Arun Toraskar with a hammer on his head causing him serious injuries resulting in his death thereby committing the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa Panaji had framed charges against all the accused for the above stated offences to which each of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and thereupon the prosecution proceeded to examine various witnesses in support of its case numbering 17 in all. The accused in defence after broadly denying the case of the prosecution led against them, examined two witnesses in defence and closed their case.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the material on record came to a clear finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the aspect of criminal conspiracy, that all the accused except one had acted in furtherance of their common object and as such gave them the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused Nos.2 to 14 of the charges levelled against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however took a view that the prosecution had established its case against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt though for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and convicted him accordingly sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default Simple imprisonment of six months.