The State appealed the Sessions Court's acquittal of the accused following a fracas. This High Court upheld the acquittal, finding the Sessions Judge's doubts about discrepancies in witness testimony and timelines regarding police arrival were well-founded.
The appeal is dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 APEAL-J-320.94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAPPELLATE SIDECRIMINAL APPEAL NO.320 OF |
AT BOMBAY1994 |
|---|---|
The State of Maharashtra....- Versus - |
Appellant |
1. Shrikant Rambhau Gawand,Age 42 |
|
2. Kashinath Shivram Gawand,Age 30 |
|
3. Abhimanyu Shivram Gawand,Age 31 |
|
4. Anant Harishchandra Gawand,Age 26 |
|
5. Chagan Hanuman Gawand,Age 29 |
|
6. Kashinath Rama Gawand,age 52 |
|
7. Sandip Parshuram Patil,age 27 |
|
8. Balu Pandya Gawand,age 29 |
|
9. Raman Pandurang Gawandage 37 |
|
10. Baban Pandurang Gawand,age 37 |
|
11. Mangesh Vasant Gawand,age 24 |
2 APEAL-J-320.94
All r/o Pirkon,
Taluka Uran,
District: Raigad..... Respondents
Ms P.P. Shinde, Addl. Public Prosecutor,
for the Appellant-State.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.
DATED: APRIL 19, 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1.This appeal by the State is directed
against the Appellate Judgment of the learned
Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag, who set aside
the conviction of the respondents herein,
recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Raigad-Alibag for the offences
punishable under Sections 325 and 452 r/w
Section 149 of the IPC as also under Section
148 of the IPC and acquitted them of the said
offences.
2.Facts which are material for deciding
this appeal are as under:
A D.Ed. College had been established at
village Pirkon with the help of the villagers
from ten adjoining villages. There were some
3 APEAL-J-320.94
disputes amongst the villagers of Pirkon itself
about the management of the D.Ed. College
spending contributions of citizens for meeting
expenses of litigation pertaining to the
management. The first informant already had
been questioning the party of the accused as to
why they were spending the contributions for
the litigation, since accused No.1 was the
representative of the villagers of Pirkon on
the management of the College. This had
allegedly incensed the party of the
respondents. On 5-10-1986, when the first
informant Raghunath was sitting at his house
with his sons Krishna, Kashinath and Nana, the
respondents, accompanied by several others
totaling 49 in number, rushed at his courtyard
and started hitting the first informant and his
family members with sticks and stones. Taibai
Gavand, Hasuram Gharat and Ramdas Gharat, who
came to their rescue, were also beaten up. This
assault, which began at 10:00 a.m., went on for
three hours. The victims claim to have confined
themselves inside their house to save
themselves from the mob fury. At about 3:00
p.m. a police vehicle came and rescued the
victims and sent them for medical treatment.
After taking a report, an offence was
registered and in the course of the
4 APEAL-J-320.94
investigation, panchnama of the spot was
performed, statements of witnesses were
recordedandoncompletionofthe
investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Uran, who committed the case to the Court of
Sessions at Alibag.
3.The learned Sessions Judge of Raigad at
Alibag charged the 49 accused persons arrayed
before him of the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148 and 307 r/w Sections 149,
Section 326 r/w Section 149, Section 452 r/w
Section 149, Section 336 r/w Section 149,
Section 337 r/w Section 149, Section 427 r/w
Section 149, Section 506 r/w Section 149 and
Section 395 r/w Section 397 of the IPC,
depending on the complicity of the participants
in each of the criminal acts. They pleaded not
guilty. The learned Sessions Judge made over
the case to a learned Assistant Sessions Judge.
The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses
in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the
accused persons. After considering the evidence
of those nine witnesses in the light of defence
of false implication raised by the accused
persons, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
found that the prosecution had failed to prove
5 APEAL-J-320.94
the charges as against accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 10
to 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28 to 31 and
34 to 49 of all the offences charged and
proceeded to acquit them. He convicted accused
Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 24 and 33
of the offences punishable under Sections 148
and 325 r/w Section 149 and Section 452 r/w
Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to
various terms of imprisonment and fine.
Aggrieved thereby, the convicts preferred an
appeal before the Court of Sessions at Alibag.
The learned Sessions Judge, after re-assessing
the entire evidence, came to hold that the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in
convicting the appellants before him and,
therefore, proceeded to allow the appeal and
set aside the conviction of those persons. He
proceeded to acquit them of the of the offences
for which they were convicted. Aggrieved
thereby, the State has preferred this appeal.
4.I have heard the learned APP for the
appellant-State and have gone through the
record with her help. None appears for the
respondents, though duly served. The evidence
tendered is in the form of testimony of PW-1
Raghunath Gavand, the first informant, who was
himself injured at the time of the incident.
6 APEAL-J-320.94
PW-2 Hasuram Gharat, PW-3 Ramdas Gharat and
PW-4 Taibai Gavand are the eye-witnesses to the
incident and were also injured in the assault.
PW-5 Krishna is the son of PW-1 Raghunath. His
other two sons, PW-6 Nana and PW-7 Kashinath
were also examined. The three sons of PW-1
Raghunath were also injured and had witnessed
the incident. PW-8 PSI Vithal Barge carried out
the investigation and PW-9 Dr. Ramrao Kendre
had examined the injured persons. The learned
Sessions Judge had held that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses was not reliable
because of the discrepancy in their evidence
about the time of the incident as well as the
time of their medical examinations. He had also
observed that all the injured eye-witnesses
stated in orchestrated harmony that the
incident began at 10:00 a.m. on 5-10-1986 and
was continued for about three hours and that
the witnesses were confined for the entire
period of three hours. They claim to have been
rescued only by the police party which had come
to the scene. The police seem to have reached
the place only at 3:00 p.m. and the witnesses
state that the police party reached around that
time except PW-6 Nana, who states that the
police party came at 1:00 p.m.. If the victims
had not been rescued till the police party
7 APEAL-J-320.94
reached, the time when the police party reached
would be material. PW-8 PSI Barge states that
at about 4:00 p.m. on the incidental day,
Police Head Constable More and some staff, in a
wireless jeep, came to him and informed him
about the incident going on at village Pirkon
and therefore he claims to have gone in that
jeep and reached village Pirkon at about 4:30
p.m.. While at one place PW-8 PSI Barge states
that before he reached, the mob had already
dispersed, in the same paragraph of his
deposition, he stated that after seeing the
police party, the mob dispersed and ran away.
Thereafter, he claims to have sent the injured
persons to the hospital. Thus, this could not
have happened before 4:30 p.m..
5.Curiously, PW-9 Dr. Kendre states that
he examined Ramdas, Hasuram, Raghunath, Taibai
and Kashinath Gavand at 3:00 p.m. itself. He
claims that though he had not received any
requisition from the police, it was his
practice to examine a person who came to his
hospital, which is indeed a salutary practice.
But the witnesses do not state that they had
gone on their own to the hospital of Dr.
Kendre. They state that they were taken there
by the police. Therefore, examination of these
8 APEAL-J-320.94
witnesses at 3:00 p.m. by Dr. Kendre would put
a big question mark on the time when the police
party reached and when the police were actually
informed of the incident.
6.This is not all. PW-5 Krishna and PW-6
Nana were examined by the Medical Officer at
8:00 p.m.. Now why these two persons were left
behind when all the other injured persons were
taken to the hospital, has not been clarified
by anyone. Because of these glaring
discrepancies, the learned Sessions Judge has
cast a doubt about the FIR at Exhibit-56 itself
being concocted since it was recorded after
4:00 p.m.. It cannot be said that the doubts
expressed by the learned Sessions Judge on the
reliability of the prosecution witnesses are
unfounded or that he had perversely rejected
the testimonies of these witnesses. Since the
view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is
probable, this appeal must fail.
7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are glaring discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence regarding the timing of the incident and police arrival?
Whether the learned Sessions Judge's view that the prosecution failed to prove the charges is based on probable grounds?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Shrikant Rambhau Gawand
Kashinath Shivram Gawand
Abhimanyu Shivram Gawand
Anant Harishchandra Gawand
Chagan Hanuman Gawand
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court