Rajendra Vitthal Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1742 OF 2009

¶5

`Rajendra Vitthal Raut`	`.. Petitioner`
`Vs`
`The State of Maharashtra`	`.. Respondent`

¶6

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. V.V. Purwant for the
Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the applicant in Cri. Appln 383 of 2010

¶8

Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State

¶9

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J
RESERVED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2010
PRONOUNCED ON: 27th OCTOBER, 2010

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-
original accused, learned APP for the State and learned
advocate for the complainant.

¶12

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 31st March 2009 passed by learned JMFC, Barshi below Exhibit

¶13

1

¶14

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

¶15

164 in R.C.C. No. 149 of 2006 and order dated 30th May 2009
passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-III, Solapur in
Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2009.

¶16

3.By order dated 31st March 2009, the learned JMFC
rejected the application of the petitioner wherein it was
prayed that Section 307 of IPC is not attracted to the
present case, hence no case is made out for committal of the
case to the Court of Sessions. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner preferred Revision being CRA No. 101 of
2009 before the learned Sessions Judge at Solapur. By order
dated 30th May 2009, the said Revision came to be
dismissed,hence this petition.

¶17

4.Mr. Gupte, senior advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the incident was not preplanned and it happened on the
spur of moment. He further submitted that the injuries caused
are not as such which show that there was any intention to
cause death of any person. He submitted that though a number
of persons were injured in the incident, the injuries of
all persons except Parmeshwar are simple in nature. Even as
far as Parmeshwar is concerned, the injuries are not as such
to attract Section 307 of IPC. Mr. Gupte submitted that it
is not on the basis of the injuries that Section 307 can be
applied but it also has to be seen whether the accused had

¶18

2

¶19

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

¶20

any intention to cause death or knowledge that any act on his
part would cause death.

¶21

5.In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it
would be necessary to state brief facts of the case. The
prosecution case as it emerges from the FIR lodged by the PSI
who was on bandobast duty is as under:

¶22

At about 11.30 am, the applicant who belongs to
Shivsena party came to Devgaon along with his party members
for a meeting. The complainant was on bandobast duty at that
time. During the meeting, one Mr. Kolekar, a person from the
party of the petitioner was giving a speech. During the
speech, he spoke against the candidate from NCP party, due to
which a verbal fight took place. The complainant and others
pacified both sides, thereupon the mob became quiet and there
was silence. Kolekar continued with his speech. After some
time, one person from Shivsena party threw a stone towards
the members of NCP Party. Thereupon, persons from NCP party
started shouting and throwing stones. At that time, the
present applicant and Haribhau Kolekar came to the mike on
the stage and told their party workers and followers to take
out all the weapons which were in their cars and to go to
every house and and kill them. On hearing this, the party
workers and followers took out the weapons from their jeep
like swords, sura and wooden logs. On seeing this, persons

¶23

3

¶24

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

¶25

started running helter-skelter. In the meanwhile, applicant
took out his fire arm and fired a shot in the air. On
hearing this, the crowd got even more terrified. In the
meantime, in the ensuing chaos, the party workers of Shivsena
forcibly entered into the houses of members of NCP Party by
breaking the doors and caused injury to some persons
including 1. Parmeshwar, 2. Balaji, 3. Rajaram, 4. Ranjit, 5.
Kasturabai and 6. Kusum. They also upturned one vehicle and
caused damage to the vehicle as well as a tractor. Out of
persons injured, Balaji, Ranjit, Kusum, Kasturabai, Rajaram
and Vijayabai received simple injuries. Parmeshwar
sustained grievous injury on the parietal region of the size
7 cm X 1 cm. This injury had caused fracture of the skull.

¶26

6.The statement of Parmeshwar shows that he was present
in the meeting when the stone throwing started. He has stated
that the applicant shouted and incited the persons he had
brought with him from outside, to take out the weapons from
their cars and murder them. On hearing the applicant, the
persons who were with the applicant took out swords, iron
rods from their cars. Meanwhile, the applicant took out a
fire arm which was with him and he fired with the fire arm
from the stage. Due to this, more terror was caused in minds
of the persons in the village and they started running. On
account of firing by the applicant, his party members were

¶27

4

¶28

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

¶29

further encouraged and they started assaulting anyone who
came in front of them. Some of them broke open the doors of
residential houses, entered the houses and started assaulting
the people therein. Parmeshwar has stated that he too got
frightened and started running. He also came to be assaulted
in the incident.

¶30

7.In the present case, the only person whose injuries can
be said to attract Section 307 of IPC is Parmeshwar. He has
sustained injury on the parietal region which is a vital part
of the body. The said injury was 7 cm X 1 cm and it has
caused fracture of the skull. From the words i.e " take out
the weapons which were in their cars and to go to every house
and kill them', which were used by the applicant in order to
incite his party workers and followers, it is seen that he
intended to cause death of persons. He has clearly exhorted
his party members and followers on the mike that they should
go and murder the people of the other side. Not only has he
incited his party workers to do so but in order to encourage
them, he has also stood on the stage and fired with his fire
arm. No doubt, this act of firing by the applicant has

¶31

not caused any injury to anyone, however, the words which he
uttered on the stage on the mike show that he intended that
death should be caused. In the present case, it cannot be
said that there was no premeditation because the words of the

¶32

5

¶33

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

¶34

applicant wherein he told his party workers that they should
go to their vehicles and take out the weapons and assault
the members of other party clearly shows that they had come
prepared to assault with deadly weapons.

¶35

8.Parmeshwar has sustained injury on the head which is
grievous in nature i.e fracture of the skull. Looking to the
nature of injuries and the words used by the applicant, in my
opinion, case under Section 307 is made out. Hence, no
case is made out to interfere with the order of learned
Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge. The petition
is dismissed.

¶36

 [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]

¶37

6

¶38

1a. cr wp 174209.doc

¶39

7

Rajendra Vitthal Raut v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Vitthal Raut v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Om Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Uchagaon Phata Kala Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anjuman Mussa Sheikh Vs Rahul Shivling Shethe and Anr.

Avinash Ashok Rokade Vs The State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashta Vs Jitendra Baburao More and Anr.

Rajendra Vitthal Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.