Dismissed

Baban Shekha Bidgar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2004APEAL/862/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with the appeal against the conviction and acquittal in a case of violent assault in a civil court. The High Court upheld the conviction of the principal accused for grievous hurt and dismissed the appeals and revision application, validating the testimony of independent witnesses despite inconsistencies in the victim's statement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.862 of 1988 and Criminal Appeal No.1073 of 1988 dismissed. Impugned order upheld. Bail bond of appellant cancelled. Criminal Revision Application No.455 of 1988 dismissed.

Baban Shekha Bidgar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

AJN

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.862 OF 1988

¶5

Baban Shekha Bidgar ) age about 38 years, residing at) Nhavare, Taluka: Shirur, Dist. ) Pune. ) ... Appellant (Orig. Accused 1) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ) (Notice to be served on ) Public Prosecutor, High ) Court, Bombay.) ) ... Respondent 1 2. Parvatrao Ramchandra Nimbalkar) Adult, Occ. Agriculturist ) Residing at Nhavare, Taluka ) Shirur, District : Pune. ) ... Respondent 2 (Orig. Complainant)

¶6

WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1073 1988

¶8

State of Maharashtra	) ...	Appellant
Versus
1. Baban Shekha Bidgar,	)
2. Mhala Shekha Bidgar,	)
3. Sala Shekha Bidgar,	)
4. Shekha Mukta Bidgar,	)
5. Barku Malhari Bidgar,	)
6. Jaising Malhari Bidgar,	)
Occupation Nil,	)
All residing at Nhavare,	)
Taluka Shirur, Dist. Pune. ) ...		Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.455 OF 1988

¶11

Parvatrao Ramchandra Nimbalkar ) ... Applicant

¶12

Versus
1. Baban Shekha Bidgar, )
2. Mhala Shekha Bidgar, )
3. Sala Shekha Bidgar, )
4. Shekha Mukta Bidgar, )
5. Barku Malhari Bidgar, )
6. Jaising Malhari Bidgar, ) Occupation Nil, )

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

All residing at Nhavare, ) Taluka Shirur, Dist. Pune. ) 7. State of Maharashtra ) ... Respondents

¶15

Mr. Navin B. Shah for appellant-accused 1.

¶16

Mr. Jitendra Patil for respondent-Complainant.

¶17

Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶18

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.S. OKA, JJ.

¶19

DATED: 5TH OCTOBER, 2004.

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT :- ( Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J. )

¶21

1.	The	present	appeals	and	revision	application	involve
same	facts	and	identical	contentions	and,	hence, it	is

¶22

advantageous to dispose them of by a common judgment and,

¶23

hence, this common judgment.

¶24

2.	T	he	appellan	t	(for convenie	nce, "ac	cused	1")	along
with	five	others	(f	or	convenience,	"accused	2	to	6
respectively	")	was	tried		in Sessions	Case	No.291	of	1987
in	the	Court	of	th	e Additional	Sessions	Judge,	Pune	at
Pune	for	the	offences		punishable	under	sections	147,	148,
326,	307	and	120-B	of	the Indian	Penal	Code	(for	short,
"the	IPC")	on	the	alle	gation that	in	furtherance	of	their
common	int	ention	they		conspired	and	cau	sed	serious

¶25

injuries to the victim Parvatrao Ramchandra Nimbalkar,

¶26

resident of Nhavare, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune,

¶27

The prosecution case is as follows. The accused are

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

residents of Village Nhavare. Accused 1 to 3 are sons of accused 4 Shekha Bidgar. They belong to farmer

¶30

community. Accused 5 and 6 are brothers. Accused 6 is

¶31

the police patil of village Nhavare.

¶32

4.	The	co	mplaina	nt is also a	resident	of	the	same
village.		He	is	also an agriculturist	and	he	belongs	to
Maratha	comm	unity.		Admittedly, there	was	a	long	standing
dispute	betw	een	the	complainant an	d	the	accused	on
account	of	a	well	situated in Survey	No.	1587.	It	appears
that	civil		suits	are pending between	the	two	sides	in

¶33

Civil Court at Shirur. Similarly, chapter cases are also

¶34

pending against both sides.

¶35

5.	On 24/3/198	7 at	about 11.30 a.m.,	the	co	m	plainant
Parvatrao	Nimbalkar	had g	one to the Civil	Court			Shirur.
He tried	to find	out	his counsel. His c	ounsel	was		not
available.	As he	was	going towards the	northern	ga	te	of
the court	compound in	sear	ch of his counsel,	accuse	d	1	to
5 came	from behind.	Th	ey were having cloth	bags	in		their
hands.	They bounced	over	the complainant.	They	fell		him
down.	All the	accused	were armed with	axes	and		sickles.
They	assaulted the	compla	inant with the help	of	the		said
weapons.	Accused 1	Baban	gave axe blows on	both	the		legs
of the	complainant	and a	lso on his head.	Rest	of		the
accused	caused injuri	es to	the complainant on	his			hand.
The	complainant’s	injuries	were bleeding p	rofusely.			His
left leg	was amputated	.	The people standing	in	the		court
premises ca	me running	towards	him. Some	of th	e	w	itnesses

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

hurled	stones	at the	accus	ed.	The	acc	used	ran	away.	The
complainan	t	was	then	taken	to	the	mun	icipal		dispensary,
Shirur.		He was	a	dmitted	there.		The		Mamlatdar	also
arrived		there.	The	co	mplainant	was	, h	owever,		conscious
and	well	oriented.		He	was in	a	position	to	make	the
statement.		Hence,	his		statement	(Ex-6	2)	came	to	be
recorded,	in	which he	gave	the	names	of	accu	sed	1 to	4 as
his	assa	ilants.	He	was	then	sent	to	Sass	oon	Hospital,
Pune. He	was in	Sassoon Hospital,	Pune, for	several

¶38

days. His left leg was required to be amputated.

¶39

6.	On	the	basis of	the statement	of	the	complainant
(Ex-62),	the	investigation	was	started.	The	accused	came

¶40

to be arrested. After completion of the investigation,

¶41

the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.

¶42

7.	At	the	tria	l, the	prosecu	tion examined	as	many	as 11
witnesses.			The	prosecution	cas	e basically	rests	on	the
evidence	of		PW-1	Parva	trao	Nimbalkar,		PW-2	Shripad
Kulkarni,	the		stamp	vendor	and	PW-4 Shan	kar	Padval,	the
court	nazir,		who	claim	to	be the	eye-witn	esses.	Dr.
Machindra	Sona	lkar,		the	medical	officer		at	Shirur
municipal	dispe	nsary		had	given	the first	aid	to	the

¶43

complainant. He has given details of injuries suffered

¶44

by the complainant. The details of the investigation

¶45

are given by PW-10 Sr.PSI, Pirmohamad Japharbai.

¶46

8.	The	defence	of the	accused	was		one of	denial.
According		to	the accused,	they	have	been	implicated	in

¶47

: 5 :

¶48

this	case	on	accoun	t of	enmity.	Acco	rding to	them,	the
complaina	nt h	ad	criminal	an	tecedents.	He	was	involved	in
a	murder	c	ase.	He	tries to	harass	the w	eaker	section
and,	hence,	most	of	the	people	in th	e village	are	holding
grudge	again	st	him	and,	hence,	he	might	have	been
attacked	by	one	of	them.	At	some	stage, the	accused	took
the	plea	of	alibi.		However,	the said	plea se	ems to	have
been	aban	doned	as	in	the state	ment und	er section	313	of

¶49

the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, "the Code"),

¶50

the accused did not speak anything about it.

¶51

9.	After	perusing	the ev	idence	adduced	by	the
prosecution,	the	learned	Sessions	Judge	acq	uitted	accused
2 to	6	of all	the charges.	He,	ho	wever,	convicted
accused	1	under section	326 of	the IPC	and	sentenc	ed him
to	suffer	rigorous imp	risonment for	five	years	and	also
to pay	a	fine	of Rs.11,000/-,	in	default	to	suffer
further	rigorous	imprisonment	for two	years.		The	learned
Sessions	Judge	directed	that in the	event	of	payment	of

¶52

fine, a sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid to the complainant

¶53

Parvatrao Nimbalkar as compensation.

¶54

10.		Being	aggrieved	by this judgment	and	order,	accused
1	has	preferr	ed Criminal	Appeal No.862 o	f 198	8 in	this
court.		Criminal	Appeal	No.1073 of 1988	is	preferred	by
the	State	of	Maharashtra	under section 378	(1)	of	the
Code	bei	ng aggr	ieved by	the impugned jud	gment	and	order
to	the	extent	to which	it acquits all	the a	ccused	of the
charges		levelled	against	them.	Criminal		Revision

¶55

: 6 :

¶56

Application	No.455	of	1988	is	prefer	red	by	the
complainant	Parvatrao	Nimbalkar	prayi	ng	that	acc	used 1	to
6 be	convicted	under	sections	147,	148,	326,	307	and
120-B of	the IPC	and	sentence	passed	agai	nst	accused 1	be

¶57

enhanced and he be awarded maximum jail sentence as

¶58

prescribed under the IPC.

¶59

11. We	have heard, at some length,	Mr. Shah	, the
learned counsel	appearing for accused	1. With	his
assistance, we	have gone through the	entire	evidence.
Mr. Shah	contended that in view of	the admitted	enmity
between the	two sides, the evidence	adduced by	the
prosecution will	have to be read with	caution for	the
possibility of	false implication cannot be	ruled out.	He
submitted tha	t the investigation has not	been	conducted
in an im	partial manner. The prosecuti	on has	suppressed
the genesis of	the case. Drawing our	attention to	Ex-62,
which is	the statement of PW-1 Parvat	rao Nimbalkar,	the
learned counsel	contended that whereas	in his	police
statement, PW-	1 Parvatrao Nimbalkar has	involved	only
four accused, i	n his evidence in the c	ourt, he has	sought
to involve	accused 5 also. Accused 6	has also	been
unnecessarily	involved. The learned	counsel	contended
that this	reflects on the credibility	of the	prosecution
story. He	further submitted that so far	as the oth	er two
eye-witnesses	are concerned namely,	PW-2	Shripad
Kulkarni, who	is the stamp vendor	and PW-4	Shankar
Padval, the	court nazir, they have stated	that they	saw
only accused	1 assaulting the complainant.	Assuming	that

¶60

: 7 :

¶61

they	are,	in fac	t, the eye-witnesses and	they have	seen
the	incident	fro	m close quarters, they	would not	have
missed	the	other	accused. They would	have named	the
other	accused	also.	Their claim that	they saw	only
accused	1	is	doubtful. The fact that	they have	not
referred	to	the	other accused	also makes	the
complainant’	s	story	suspicious because	the co	mplainant
has	referred	to	four persons.	Mr. Shah	further
contended	that	so	far as PW-2 Shripad	Kulkarni, the	stamp
vendor	is	conce	rned, it is doubtful w	hether he was,	in
fact,	present	at	the scene of	offence because	the
incident	is	said	to have taken place	between 11.00	a.m.
to	11.30	a.m.	and in his police	statement, PW-2	Shripad
Kulkarni	has	stat	ed that he came to	the court at	12.00
a.m.	In cou	rt he	has stated that he	came to the co	urt at
11.45	a.m.	Th	is contradiction suggests	that this	witness
was	not in	court	at the time of the	incident. So f	ar as
PW-4	Shankar	Padval	is concerned, according	to Mr.	Shah,
his	evidence	also	cannot be readily	accepted because	he
had	colluded	with	the complainant to ge	t Suit No.118	of
1985,	which	was	filed by the accuse	d, withdrawn by	false
means.	Mr.	Shah	pointed out that this	case is put	up in
the	cross-exami	nation	of this witness.	It would	be,
therefore,	risky	to	rely on the eviden	ce of this	witness.
Mr.	Shah	also	pointed out that PW-2	Shripad Kulkarni	has
admitted	in	his	evidence that he knew	accused 2 to	6
also.	There	fore,	it is inconceivable	that if he	had
witnessed	accused	1	giving blows	with axe on	the
complainant,	h	e	would not have seen	the other	accused.

¶62

: 8 :

¶63

The	story that their back was turned towar	ds hi	m is
inherently	improbable and casts a shadow of	doubt	on the
entire	prosecution case. Mr. Shah f	urther	contended
that	the prosecution case that there was	a	conspiracy,
has	been rightly discarded by the learned	Sessions	Judge.
The	learned Sessions Judge has rejected the	evidence	of
PW-6	Tatyaba Shendge. Similarly, the le	arned	Sessions
Judge	has disbelieved the entire evidence of	discov	ery of
weapons	at the instance of the accuse	d.	Therefore,
substratum	of the prosecution story has di	sappeared.	It
is,	therefore, difficult to hold that t	he	prosecution
story,	only so far as it relates to the	assau	lt by
accused	1 is acceptable. In such a	situation	, the
benefit	must go to the accused. The	learned	counsel
submitted	that, in the circumstances, the	orde	r of

¶64

conviction and sentence be set aside and accused 1 be

¶65

acquitted.

¶66

12.	Mr.		Jitendra	Patil,	the	learned	counsel	appearing
for	the	petitio	ner-complainant		in		Criminal	Revision
Application	N	o.455	of	1988,	cont	ended	that the	learned
Sessions	Judge	was	wrong	in	acqu	itting	the other	accused.
He su	bmitted	that	the m	edical	evid	ence	clearly shows	that
there	were	several	injuries	on	the	compl	ainant. In	the
nature	of	things,	therefore,	this	is	not	a work of	one
man	and	particip	ation of	all	the	other	accused must	be
inferred.		He	submitted	that	the	learn	ed Sessions	Judge
ought	to	have	believed	the	evidence	of	PW-1	Parvatrao
Nimbalkar,	who	is	an	injure	d wi	tness	and should	have

¶67

: 9 :

¶68

convicted		all	the	accused.		He further submit	ted that	so
far	as	accused	1	is co	ncerned,	looking to the	nature	of
the	injuries		and	evidence	of	the doctor that	the	said
injuries	could		have	resulted	in	the death	of	the
complainant,		the		learned	Sessions	Judge ought	to	have
convicted	a	ccused	1	under	section	307 of the	IPC and	not

¶69

under section 326 of the IPC and, therefore, the sentence

¶70

awarded to him be enhanced.

¶71

13.	We h	ave also	heard	Mr.		D.S.		Mhaispurkar,	the
learned	A.P.P.	appe	aring	for	the	State	in	support	of
Criminal	Appeal	No.1073	of	1998	filed	by	the	State.	He
contended	that	the	order	of	acqu	ittal	of	other	accused
i.e.	accused	2 to	6	deserv	es to	be	set	aside.	He
submitted	that	there	was	no	reason	for		PW-1	Parvatrao
Nimbalkar	to	falsely	imp	licate	the	other	acc	used.	His
evidence	is	consistent		and,	therefore,		the	order	of
acquittal	of	the other	a	ccused	be	set	asi	de, and	looking
to the	nature	of the	i	njuries	susta	ined	by	PW-1	Parvatrao

¶72

Nimbalkar and the manner of commission of the crime all

¶73

the accused be convicted in accordance with law.

¶74

14.	We	have	giv	en	our	anxious	considerati	on to	the
submissions	advan	ced	by		both	sides.	It is	an	admitted
position	that		the	r	elationship	between	the	accused	and
the	complainant		was		strained.	The	dispute	pertains	to
the right	and	title	to	a	well.	In	respect	of this,	civil
litigation	is		pending		in Ci	vil Court	, Shirur.		Chapter
cases	were	also	pendin	g	against	both	sides.	We	shall

¶75

: 10 :

¶76

view the entire evidence against the background of the

¶77

admitted strained relationship between the two sides.

¶78

15.	P	W-1	Parvat	r	ao Nimbalkar has	in	his evi	dence		given
the	nature	of	t	h	e incident. He	has	stated		that	on
24/3/1987,	he		went		to Shirur Civil	Cour	t to	at	tend	a
civil	case.		At		about 11.30 a.m.,	he	was	searchin	g	for
his	counsel	Mr.	D		eo. He saw acc	used	1 to	5 c	oming	from
behind	the		house		wherein the court	clerk	and	the		peon
reside.		They	w	e	re having cloth	bags	in	their		hands.
Accused	1	took	out		an axe from his	clot	h bag.		Accuse	d 4
also	took	out	an		axe from his bag.	Acc	used 2,	3	and	5
also	took	out	sic	k	les from their r	espective	bags.			They
fell	the	compl	ainant		down on the g	round.	Ac	cused	1	with
the	help	of	axe		gave blows on both	his	legs.		He	also
gave	blows	on	his		head. Rest of	the	accused	beat	him	by
sickles	and		axes.		He received in	juries	on	his		hands.
His	left	leg	h	a	d to be amputated.		He	raise	d	cries.
People	came		runni	n	g towards him.	The	accused	the	n	ran

¶79

away. He was then shifted to the municipal dispensary,

¶80

Shirur and his statement, Ex-62, came to be recorded.

¶81

16.	It	is	true that	in	Ex-62,	PW	-1	Parvatr	ao	Nimbalkar
has	involved	only	accused	1 to	4	but	in	the	court	he has
referred	to	accus	ed 5	as	being		his	as	sailant.	The
question	is	wheth	er PW-	1 P	arvatrao		Nim	balkar’s	story	that
all	the	accused	assaulted	him	can	be	acce	pted.	In	this
connection,		it is	also	necessary	to	see		the	evidence	of
another	ey	e-witness	i.e.	PW-2	Sh	ripad	K	ulkarni,	who	is

¶82

: 11 :

¶83

the	stamp	vendor. PW-2	Shripad	Kulkarni	has	stated	that
on	24/3/1987, at	about 11.30 a.m.		or 11.45	a.m.,	he	came
to	the court	campus. He	heard	a co	mmotion	on	the
northern	side	of the court prem	ises.	He	saw five	to	six
persons	beating	one person by	axes	and	sickles.		That
person	was	the complainant	PW-	1 P	arvatrao	Ni	mbalkar.
Accused	1 wa	s one of the ass	ailants.	He	gave axe		blows
on	the legs	of the complaina	nt.	The	complainant		raised
cries.	The	refore, many lit	igants	including	the		court
nazir	rushed to	the spot. The	assa	ilants ran	away.		PW-2
Shripad	Kulk	arni has further	stated	that	thereafter,		he
helped	shift	the complainant	to	the	municipal	dis	pensary,

¶84

Shirur. The police recorded his statement on the same

¶85

day.

¶86

17.	PW-4	Shank	ar Pad	val, is	the	court		naz	ir.	He	also
claims	that he	had	seen	the	incident.			He	has	stated	that
on 24	/3/1987 as	usual	he	attend	ed	his	d	uties	in	the	court
at	about 11.00	a.m.	He	was	sitting	in		his	chair	in	the
court	building.	At	abou	t 1	1.45	a.	m	.,	he	heard	a
commotion	from ou	tside.	He	came	out	of	h	is	room.	On	the
northern	side	near	the	small	gate,	he		saw	an	incident	of
maramari	going	on.	He	went	ahead.	H	e	s	aw five		persons
were	assaulting	a	man	with	weapons.			Out	of	the	five
assailants,	he	could	only	recog	nise	accused		1	.	He	could
not	identify	the	other	assailants	as	he		coul	d	not	see

¶87

their faces. Accused 1 was beating the complainant with

¶88

the help of axe, on his legs.

¶89

			: 12 :
18.	In	our opinion,	the evidence	of PW-2	Shripad
Kulkarni	an	d PW-4	Shankar Padval	inspires co	nfidence.
PW-2	Shripad	Kulkarni is	the stamp vendor.	He knows	both
the	complain	ant and the	accused. If	he really wante	d to
take	the	side of the	complainant, he	could have	falsely
implicated	al	l the accuse	d. The fact	that he names	only
one	person	speaks	for the credibility	of this	witness.
We	find	no substa	nce in the crit	icism levelled	against
this	witness	about a	minor contradiction	which has	been
brought	on	record in	his evidence as	regards the	time
when	he	came to	the court. Where	as, in his	police
statement,	he	had stated	that he came	to the court	at
12.45	a.m.,	he has	stated in his ev	idence in the	court
that	he w	as in the	court at about 11.	45 a.m. He	has
explained	it	by saying	that the police	had recorded	the
time	wrongly.	In o	ur opinion, t	his is a	minor
discrepancy		which does	not discredit his	testimony.	We

¶90

find that his evidence is a ring of truth. We accept him

¶91

as a truthful witness.

¶92

19.	Simil	arly, PW	-4	Shankar	Pad	val also	appears	to	be a
truthful	witness.	It	is	true	that	a sug	gestion	is	put to
him	that	he col	luded	with	the	complainant	to	get	Suit
No.118	of	1985	withd	rawn	by	false means.		But,	barring
this	suggesti	on, the	re	is	no	material	produced	on	record
to i	ndicate	that,	in	fact,	he	had co	lluded	with	the
complainant.		His	ev	idence	canno	t be	discarded	mer	ely on
this	ground,	which	is	unsubs	tantiated.	We	feel	that	if
both	these	witnesses		really		wanted	to	support	the

¶93

: 13 :

¶94

complainant,	they	would	have	implicat	ed	the	other	accused
also but,	they	only	say	that they	saw	only	accused	1
assaulting	the	complaina	nt.	The	evidence	of	these	two

¶95

witnesses, in our opinion, corroborates the complainant’s

¶96

case that he was assaulted by accused 1 on his legs.

¶97

We are mindful of the fact that the complainant has in his complaint involved only four persons whereas in the court he has involved one more person. But on that ground, we are not inclined to disbelieve him completely. No doubt, he has exaggerated the case but such exaggeration does not make him an unreliable witness. It is a fact that he has received injuries. It is a fact that his leg had to be amputated and two independent witnesses have supported his version so far as the attack on his leg is concerned. Therefore, in our opinion, PW-1 Parvatrao Nimbalkar, to the extent to which he speaks

¶98

about the assault by accused 1 on his leg is concerned,

¶99

must be believed.

¶100

21.	In	Sucha	Singh	and	another	v.	State	of	Punjab,
(2003)	7	SCC	643 ,	the	Supreme	Court	has	considered	a
situation		where	testimony		of	a	witness	was	partly
deficient,		but	the re	sidue	was	sufficient	to	prove	the

¶101

guilt of the accused. The following observations of the

¶102

Supreme Court are material:

¶103

"The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in ommibus" has no application in India and

¶104

: 14 :

¶105

the witnesses cannot be branded as liars.
This maxim has not received general
acceptance nor has it come to occupy the
status of a rule of law. It is merely a
rule of caution. All that it amounts to is
that in such cases testimony may be
disregarded, and not that it must be
disregarded. The doctrine merely involves
the question of weight of evidence which a
court may apply in a given set of
circumstances, but it is not what may be
called "a mandatory rule of evidence". The
doctrine is a dangerous one, especially in
India for if a whole body of the testimony
were to be rejected, because a witness was
evidently speaking an untruth in some
aspect, it is to be feared that
administration of criminal justice would
come to a deep stop. Witnesses just cannot
help in giving embroidery to a story,
however true in the main. Therefore, it
has to be appraised in each case as to what
extent the evidence is worthy of
acceptance, and merely because in some
respects the court considers the same to be
insufficient for placing reliance on the
testimony of a witness, it does not
necessarily follow as a matter of law that
it must be disregarded in all respects as

¶106

: 15 :

¶107

well.	The evidence has to be	sifted	with
care.	Firstly of a particu	lar	material
witness	or a material particular	would	not
ruin	it from the beginning to	end.	The
aforesaid	dictum is not a sound	rule	for
the	reason that one hardly comes	across	a
witness	whose evidence does not	contain	a
grain	of untruth or at	any	rate

¶108

exaggeration, embroideries or

¶109

embellishment".

¶110

	I	n our opinio	n, t	he above observ	ations of	the
Supreme		Court would	cover	the present	case.	The
exaggerated		version given	by	this witness	can	be
separated		from the core	of	his evidence	which	is
supported		by the evid	ence	of two eye-	witnesses	and
conviction		can be based	on it.	The offence	is s	erious.
It	is	committed in the	court	premises, on a	working	day,
in	the	afternoon.	The	evidence ind	icates	that
several		litigants, lawyers	and	other staff memb	ers	were
present.		Such an incide	nt is	bound to unleash	a wave	of
terror.		In the ci	rcumstances,	considering the	ev	idence

¶111

on record, we feel that the appeal filed by accused 1

¶112

must be dismissed.

¶113

22.	So	far as	the	pros	ecution	case	about	the	cons	piracy
is	concerned,	the	same	has	rightly	been	disca	rded	by	the
trial	court.	We	feel	that	the	evidence	of	disco	very	has
also	been	rightly	disc	arded.	Th	ere is		absolutel	y	no

¶114

						: 1	6 :
evidence	on	r	ecord	to	co	me to	t	h	e	conc	lusion	that	accused
2 t	o 6	are	in	any	way	involv	ed	in		this	crime.	They	have
been	rightl	y		acquitt	ed b	y the	tri	al		court	and	the	view
taken	by	t	he	trial	court	so far	as		ac	cused	2 to	6	are
concerned	i	s,	in	fact,	the	only	vie	w		which	can	be	taken
as	regards		t	heir	a	lleged	partici	pa	tio	n in		the	crime.
Hence,	we		are		not	inclined	to		dis	turb	their	order	of
acquittal.		So		far	as	acq	uittal		of	a	ccused	1	under
section	30	7	of	the	IPC	is	conce	rn	ed,	we	are	not	inclined
to	disturb		that	in	vie	w of	the		d	octor’s	ev	idence	that

¶115

injuries 1 and 2 could be fatal in case of excess

¶116

bleeding.

¶117

23.	So	far	as	the	revision	app	lication	filed	by	the
complainant		being	Criminal		Revision		Applic	ation	No.455	of
1988	is	concerned	, in	the	view	that	we	have	taken,	it

¶118

does not survive and will have to be dismissed. Hence,

¶119

we pass the following order.

¶120

O R D E R

¶121

C	riminal		Appeal No.862	of	19	88 is
dismissed.			The impugned	order		dated
14/9/1988		p	assed by the	learned		Session
Judge	in		Sessions Case No.291	of	19	87 is
upheld.			Order of conviction	and		sentence
passed	aga	in	st original accused	1		Baban
Shekha	Bidgar		is confirmed. In	view		of the

¶122

				: 17 :
above,	Crim	inal	Appeal	No.1073		of	1998
filed	by	the	State	is dismi	ssed.		Original
accused	1	Baban	Shekha	Bidgar	is	on	bail.
His	bail	bond	stands	cancelled.		He	shall
surrender		within	eight	weeks	fro	m	today.

¶123

Interim order dated 7/10/1988 suspending

¶124

fine is vacated.

¶125

Criminal Revision Application No.455

¶126

of 1988 is also dismissed.

¶127

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶128

(A.S. OKA, J.)

Baban Shekha Bidgar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Shekha Bidgar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kisan Mariti Jadhav and Others

Jalinder Devidas Shinde. Vs State of Maharashtra.

Suresh Kumar Jain Vs R.K.Gupta and Anr.

Shri Vijay Vishnu Gangurde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhash Aba Bodke and Another.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Shivaram S/O. Parasharam Mang