The State of Maharashtra V/S.1.B.A.SATVILKAR and Ors. Vs 1.BABALAL Adam Satvilkar and 13 Ors.

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 1996

The State of Maharashtra	....... Appellant.
versus
1. Babalal Adam Satvilkar	)
2. Kasam Usman Navlekar	)
3. Noormahamad Abbas Nawelkar	)
4. Akbar Usuf Satwilkar	)
5. Hamid Usuf Satwilkar	)
6. Latif Yusuf Satwilkar	)
7. Husen Yakub Nawlekar	)
8. Usuf Adam Satwilkar	)
9. Abdul karim Babalal Satwilkar )
10. Karim Hasan Batwale	)
11. Umar Imam Nawlekar	)
12. Hamid Imam Nawlekar	)
13. Usuf Hussein Nawlekar	)
14. Abbas Mahamad Navalekar	).... Respondents.

¶5

Shri A.M.Shringarpure APP for State. None for the respondents.

¶6

CORAM ; V.G.PALSHIKAR & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶7

DATED; 11TH JULY, 2005

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Palshikar, J.);

¶9

1.	Being	ag	grieved by	the	judg	ment dat	ed 31-10-1995
passed	by	the	Additional	Ses	sions	Judge,	Sawantwadi in
Sessions	Case	No.	26	of	1992,	the	appellant has

¶10

preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the

¶11

memo of appeal as also canvassed before us.

¶12

With the assistance of the learned advocate

¶13

(2)

¶14

appearing o		n	behalf of	the	appellant	and	the	learned
APP, we		have	scrutinised		the	entire	record,	and
re-appreciated		the	evidence	both	oral	and	doc	umentary

¶15

as is raised on the record before the Additional Sessions Judge.

¶16

3.	The	prosecution case is th	at there were	fraction
between	the	Muslim community	in village	Nandgaon.
Taluka	Kankavli,	District Sindhudurg.	This rift le	d on
frequent	quarrels	between the two,	particularly for	the
reason	of	some riot in the rituals	of Moharam in	the
village.	I	n the year 1991 the	Moharam started o	n 13th
July	and e	nded on 25th July 1991.	The accused	persons
around	9	O’ clock in the morning	left the mosque	and
following	an	altercation between	the group	assaulted
the com	plainant	and his group, as a	result of whi	ch the
complainant		filed an FIR before	the police for	offence
under	section	307 and 148 read	with 149 of	IPC.
Investigation		was carried out and	the accused	persons
were	prosecuted.	In all 14	accused persons	were
prosecuted	and	the prosecution led	evidence of	11
witnesses	to	prove its case that	the accused	persons
with	the	common object of causing	hurt, assaulted	the
complainant	and	his party and some	persons were	injured
in	that	assault. The learne	d trial Judge	on
appreciation	of	this evidence of 11	witnesses and	other

¶17

(3)

¶18

documentary			evid	ence	like		injury	c	ertificate,
panchanama		etc.		came	to the	c	onclusion	that	the
prosecution		has		failed	to prove	the	guilt	of	the
accused.			He	therefo	re proceeded	to	acquit	the	accused
persons	o	f	all	the	charges. It	is	this	order	of

¶19

acquittal, which is challenged in this appeal by the

¶20

State.

¶21

4.	P.w.	1 Hus	ein	Ismail Navlek	ar is	the	pers	on wh	o has
lodged	the	co	mplai	nt. He ha	s been	ex	amined	to	prove
the	complaint.		He	proved the	compl	aint	and	admtite	d in
the	examinati	on-in-chie	f	itself th	at	except		the	accused
nos.	11	to	14	rest of the	accused	did	no	thing.	In
view	of	this	c	andid admission	, the	l	earned	trial	Judge
found	that	the	pro	secution has	failed	to	make	out	any
case	of	formation		of unl	awful	asse	mbly	and	that

¶22

unlawful assembly doing something in furtherence of

¶23

that common object.

¶24

5.	P.w.	2 Ham	id	has also	giv	en his	versi	on as	to	how
the	assau	lt took	plac	e and	he	has	referre	d to		accused
Nos.3	,11,12	and	13	attribu	ting	some	ov	ert-act	to	them.
He	also	gives	refe	rence on	ly	to	four	accused		persons.
It	will	thus be	see	n that	P.ws.		1 and	2	both	referred
to	accused	nos.11, 1	2	and 13.		The	name	of	accused	no.3
has	not	mentioned	by	P.w.1	as	has	been	done	by	P.w.2.

¶25

(4)

¶26

P.w.3	Imam mentions the	overt ac	t only by accus	ed	no.3.
Similar	is the case	of P.w.4	Kutubuddin, P.w.5		Kasam,
P.w.7	Ibrahim, P.w.8 Us	man and	P.w.9 Shahabuddin.		None
of	them mentions m	ore than fo	ur persons when		mostly
though	mention about	2/3 persons.	It is thus		clear
that	none of the	witnesses	have stated abo	ut	the
presence	of five or	more person	s at that time	and	that
without	being basic	ingredients	of the defen	ce	of
unlawful	assembly, the	prosecution	has miserably		failed
to	prove any unlaw	ful assembly	in this case.		The
question	of unlawful	assembly	having common		object
therefore	cannot come	even on	the other		accused
persons.	The entire	evidence	of these		witnesses
concerned	humiliate	their say	varied and	con	tradictory
and	that it is imp	ossible for	an ordinary prudent		man
to	come to any defi	nite conclusion	as to who did		what

¶27

in the assault which took place. Hence the

¶28

participation itself becomes doubtful.

¶29

6.	The	learned	Judge	has	c	onsidere	d this		aspect	in
great	details	and	it can	be		very	easily	inferr	ed	from
the	evidence	as	reappreci	ated	by	us	that	none	of	the
witnesses	re	ferred to	, at	any		point	of	time,	more	than
four	persons	as	having	allege	d	some	overt	act	or	the
other	in	relation	to the	per	sons	ass	aulted.		There	is
thus	total	failure	on	the	part	of	the	prose	cution	to

¶30

(5)

¶31

prove	the	charge	of forma	tion of	any	unla	wful	assembly.
The	deposi	tion	of these	witnesses	also	does	not	give
rise	to	any	definite posit	ion as	to what		injury	was
caused	on	each	accused.	Cons	equently	it	is	very
difficult	to	rea	ch any	conclusion	as		regards	this
unlawful		assembly,	the a	cts as	contem	plated	by	section
307	IPC.	That	section	requires	assault	or	injury	which
intend	to	commit	murder.	None	of the	inj	uries	caused

¶32

which is not proved as such would result or likelihood

¶33

of certain death.

¶34

7.	The	learned	Jud	ge has	also co	nsidered	in	detail,
the	relevant	case	law	on the	point for	comin	g to	the
conclusion	that	the	acc	used req	uired to	be		convicted.
The	scrutiny	of	the	judgment	impugned	will	show	that
appreciation	of	e	vidence	was	correctly	done,	and	law
was	correctly	applied	, a	nd the	learned	Judge	has	given
cogent	reason	for	com	ing to	the	con	clusion	of
acquitting	the	accused	as	order	ed in	the	circ	umstances.
We	are in	res	pectful	agreement	to	the	findings	as
recorded	by	the	learned	J	udge.	In	the	result

¶35

therefore, there is no case for interference. The

¶36

appeal fails and it is dismissed.

¶37

xxxx

The State of Maharashtra V/S.1.B.A.SATVILKAR and Ors. v. 1.BABALAL Adam Satvilkar and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra V/S.1.B.A.SATVILKAR and Ors. v. 1.BABALAL Adam Satvilkar and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ganesh Padmakar Bhagat and Ors. .

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dagadu Nivrutti Sherkhane and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Appaso Babar and Ors.

Babusha @ Baburao Ramabhau Upase and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri.Robin Abraham,Inspector of Customs,Prevn.by Vs Smt.Ramai Moodley and Ors.

The State v/S S.K.Ubale. Vs Sukdev Kalu Ubale