Dismissed

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Murlidhar Jagtap and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2017APEAL/175/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the Sessions Court's acquittal of accused persons charged with attempted murder and offences under the Arms Act. The court held that prosecution evidence was unreliable and insufficient to prove unlawful assembly or attempt to commit murder.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; bail bonds of accused Nos. 1, 4, and 5 were cancelled.

State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh Murlidhar Jagtap… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

criapl175.03

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.175 OF 2003

¶5

The State of Maharashtra..Appellant
through the Police Inspector,
Jalgaon City Police Station,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon

¶6

Versus

¶7

`1.`	`Suresh S/o. Murlidhar Jagtap`	`..` `Res`	`pondents`
	`Age-25 years, Occu-Labour,` `R/o. Samta Nagar, Jalgaon`	`(Ori.`	`Accused)`
`2.`	`Popat S/o. Rama Sonawane,` `Age-52 years, Occu-Pensioner,` `R/o. Behind Collector Bungalow,` `Jalgaon.` (Appeal is abated against Resp. No.2)
`3.`	`Vilas S/o. Popat Sonawane,` `Age-22 years, Occu-Education,` `R/o.Behind Collector Bungalow,` `Jalgaon` (Appeal is abated against Resp. No.3)
`4.`	`Vinod S/o. Govinda Raddhe,` `Age-21 years, Occu-Rickshaw Driver,` `R/o. Behind Hatnur Colony,` `Jalgaon`
`5.`	`Kailas S/o. Popat Sonawane,` `Age-25 years, Occu-Rickshaw Driver,` `R/o. Behind Collector Bungalow,` `Jalgaon`

¶8

( 2 ) criapl175.03

¶9

Mr.S.G.Salgare, APP for the appellant/State
Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the respondent Nos.
1,4 & 5.

¶10

CORAM :T.V.NALAWADE & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATED :14.12.2017

¶11

J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶12

.This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 23.10.2002 in Sessions Case No.137 of 1999
passed by the 1-Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon
thereby acquitting the respondents/accused of the
offences under Section 307 r/w Section 149 and Sections
147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC)
and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶13

2.Respondent No.2/accused No.2 Popat Rama Sonawane
died on 12.12.2015 as per death certificate dated
27.10.2017 issued by Jalgaon Municipal Corporation and
respondent No.3/accused No.3 Vilas Popat Sonawane died on
24.11.2013 as per death certificate dated 18.01.2014
issued by Bruhan Mumbai Municipal Corporation which are
respectively marked as Articles 'A' & 'B' for
identification and kept with the file. Therefore, the
appeal is abated against accused No.2 Popat Rama Sonawane
and accused No.3 Vilas Popat Sonawane.

¶14

3.The facts of the prosecution case are as under:-

¶15

A]Rajesh Sonwane (PW-2), Arjun More, Pitambar
Sonawane, Gautam Sonawane, Sunil Sonawane were involved
in the offence of murder of Sanjay Sonawane son of
accused No.2 Popat, as per Sessions Case No.212/1998
(Hereinafter referred to as the said Sessions Case). The
trial in the said Sessions Case was conducted before
[Shri. J.D.Kulkarni, the then Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon]. On 28.04.1999 judgment was to be delivered in
the said Sessions case. Therefore, Police Constable
Yuvraj Nagrut, Head Constable Shaikh Musa Shaikh Esa,
Police Constable Alim Shaikh Ebrahim, Police Constable
Balu Dagadu, Police Constable Nanasaheb Pandurang, and
Police Constable Dilip Mukhtyarsingh had escorted the
above named accused in said Sessions Case to the Court of
Sessions on 28.04.1999 in the Government vehicle bearing
No.Mh-12 E-8978. Before one hour of the judgment the
accused in the said Sessions Case had given idea to the
escorting party that relatives of the deceased Sanjay
i.e. accused in this case would make attack on them.
Therefore, Police Constable Nimba Patil who was on case
watch duty had phoned to City Police Station, Jalgaon and
Control Room. After 10 to 15 minutes therefrom 6 to 7

¶16

( 4 ) criapl175.03

¶17

persons armed with swords were saying as to where are
Rajesh Pitambar and others. Then said 6 to 7 persons had
raised their hands with swords. The Police in escorting
party had asked them to stop. But, they did not listen
and they were coming towards Rajesh and others accused in
the said Sessions Case. Since Police in escorting party
felt that they would make attack on them and accused in
the said Sessions Case and there would be danger to their
life the Police Constable Nagrut fired a round from
Carbine towards sky due to which two of them threw swords
on the ground and some armed with swords ran towards
ground floor. The PSI Ufad, Police Constable More and
other Police staff apprehended those persons with
weapons. Rajesh and others accused in the said Sessions
Case were taken by Government vehicle to the Sub-Jail.
The Police Constable Nagrut lodged FIR with City Police
Station, Jalgaon on the same day at about 2.50 pm. The
Crime No.50/1999 for the offences under Sections 147,148
and 307 of the IPC, under Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the
Arms Act and under Section 37(1) r/w Section 135 of the
Bombay Police Act came to be registered in the said
Police Station and investigation was started.

¶18

B.During investigation PSI Patil visited the spot
and drew the panchanama (Exh.24) in presence of panchas.

¶19

( 5 ) criapl175.03

¶20

He seized cement of the room which was fallen due to
hitting of the bullet and empty cartridge from the spot
of incident. He arrested all the accused in the Court
premises. The weapons were also taken in custody in the
Court premises and panchanamas were prepared in the
Police Station. The Police Constable Nagrut deposited
carbine and empty cartridge which were seized under
panchanama (Exh.26). The Investigating Officer recorded
statements of Head Constable Shaikh Musa, staff members
of the Court and Advocates on 28.04.1999. On 03.04.1999
he recorded statements of Rajesh and others. Carbine was
kept in Armory at Head Quarter.

¶21

C.After completion of the investigation PSI Patil
submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalgaon for the aforesaid offences against
the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jalgaon committed the case to the Sessions Court, Jalgaon
as the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions which was
allotted to the 1-Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon.

¶22

D.The charge was framed against the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 149,

¶23

( 6 ) criapl175.03

¶24

Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the
Arms Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Their defence was denial. According to
accused they were in cross terms with Rajesh who
committed murder of Sanjay. After he was acquitted of the
offence in the said Sessions due to political pressure
this false case is filed against them.

¶25

4.To prove the charge against accused the
prosecution has examined in all four witnesses and it has
relied upon the complaint/FIR and panchanamas referred to
above. Considering the evidence adduced by the
prosecution the trial Court has held that the prosecution
has failed to prove the offences against the accused with
which they were charged and accordingly acquitted the
accused of the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w
149, 147 and 148 of the IPC and under Section 4 r/w
Section 25 of the Arms Act by the impugned judgment and
order. Therefore, this appeal is filed by the State
against the acquittal of the respondents/accused on
several grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. As
said earlier the appeal has been abated against the
accused Nos. 2 and 3.

¶26

5.We have heard the learned APP appearing for the

¶27

appellant/State and learned Advocate appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1,4 and 5 and with their assistance we
have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We
have also perused the impugned judgment and order.

¶28

6.Since this is an appeal against the acquittal
before examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution
it is necessary to bear in mind the principle regarding
approach of the appellate Court in the appeal against
acquittal laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Murlidhar alias Gidda and another Vs State of Karnataka,
2014(4)Mh.L.J.(Cri)353 wherein in para No.12 the Apex
Court has held thus:

¶29

"12.The approach of the appellate Court in
the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with
by this Court in Tulshiram Kanu Vs State, AIR
1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P.,
AIR 1954 SC 637, Atley Vs State of U.P., AIR
1955 SC 807, Aher Raja Khima Vs State of
Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217, Balbir Singh Vs
State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agrawal
Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, Noor
Khan Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286,
Khedu Mohton Vs State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC
450, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, Lekha Yadav Vs
State of Bihar, (1973) 2 SCC 424, Khem Karan Vs
State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 603, Bisan Singh Vs
State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 288, Umedbhai

¶30

( 8 )

¶31

criapl175.03

¶32

Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujrat, (1978) 1 SCC 228,
K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1979) 1 SCC
355, Tota Singh Vs State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC
529, Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana, 1995 Supp
(1) SCC 248, Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K,
(1997) 7 SCC 677, Sambasivan Vs State of Kerala,
(1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh Vs State of
M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85, Harijana Thirupala Vs
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2002) 6
SCC 470, C. Antony Vs K.G. Raghavan Nair, (2003)
1 SCC 1, State of Karnataka Vs K. Gopalkrishna,
(2005) 9 SCC 291, State of Goa Vs Sanjay
Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa,
Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415.It is not necessary to deal with these
cases individually. Suffice it to say that this
Court has consistently held that in dealing with
appeals against acquittal, the appellate Court
must bear in mind the following : (i) There is
presumption of innocence in favour of an accused
person and such presumption is strengthened by
the order of acquittal passed in his favour by
the trial Court, (ii) The accused person is
entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when
it deals with the merit of the appeal against
acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the
appellate Court in considering the appeals
against acquittal are as extensive as its powers
in appeals against convictions but the appellate
Court is generally loath in disturbing the
findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. It
is so because the trial Court had an advantage
of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the
trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts
of the case, interference by the appellate Court
with the judgment of acquittal is not justified.
Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial
Court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous

¶33

( 9 ) criapl175.03

¶34

view of the law or if such conclusions are
allowed to stand, they are likely to result in
grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of
the appellate Court in interfering with such
conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely
because of the appellate Court on re-
appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence
is inclined to take a different view,
interference with the judgment of acquittal is
not justified if the view taken by the trial
Court is a possible view. The evenly balanced
views of the evidence must not result in the
interference by the appellate Court in the
judgment of the trial Court."

¶35

7.The prosecution has alleged that after judgment
was delivered in the said Sessions Case wherein PW-2 and
others were accused for the offence of murder of son of
present accused No.2 at about 01.00 pm. the incident took
place in varanda of the Court and in the said incident at
that time all the accused were members of unlawful
assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons and in
prosecution of common object of said assembly to commit
murder of PW-2 they attempted to commit murder of PW-2
Rajesh and others accused in said Sessions Case. To prove
the said facts prosecution has mainly relied upon the
evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and circumstantial evidence i.e.
panchanama of spot of incident (Exh.24), panchanama of
seizure of weapons (Exh.25) and panchanama (Exh.26) of
seizure of one carbine and empty cartridge.

¶36

8.The evidence of Rajesh Pitambar Sonawane (PW-2)
who was accused in the said Sessions Case has deposed
that he and four others were acquitted on 28.04.1999 in
the said Sessions case by Additional District Judge Shri.
J.D.Kulkarni for the offence under Section 302 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC for committing murder of Sanjay
Popat Sonawane. One Gulab Raghunath Patil who was
District Head of the Shivsena was the complainant in the
said Sessions Case. The deceased Sanjay was son of
accused No.2 in the present case and rest of the accused
in the present case are related to said accused. He
further deposed that on 16.04.1999 arguments were heard
in the said Sessions Case. They all were under trial
prisoners in the said Sessions Case. After the arguments
were heard while they were being taken by the police on
16.04.1999, the accused persons in the get of the Court
had threatened them that on 28.04.1999 i.e. on the date
of judgment they would kill them all and they would fire
through country made revolver. The police took them to
Sub-Jail, Jalgaon. They had submitted an application to
the Jailor in respect of the said threat of accused and
had requested for providing guards. All the accused
reside at Jalgaon and they all are his relatives.

¶37

( 11 ) criapl175.03

¶38

9.As regards the incident Rajesh (PW-2) has stated
that on 28.04.1999 they were brought to the Court from
the Jail with security. At 11.30 am they were sitting in
front of the Court hall. At 12 noon Advocate Shri. Chitre
appointed to assist the prosecution had entered the Court
hall. Their Advocate Shri Sushil Atre after meeting them
came down. Thereafter they were taken in the Court hall
and there were police guards, Advocate Chitre, accused
Nos.2,3 and 5 were with them. The judgment was delivered
at 01.00 pm and they were acquitted. Thereafter, accused
Nos. 2,3 and 5 came down. They were also taken out of the
Court hall. Police Constable Lingayat came to them and
informed to the guards that relatives of the deceased are
armed with deadly weapons, and to load their guns and
accordingly guards loaded the guns. One Police Constable
went to phone in the police station since the situation
in the Court premises was tense. Surname of the said
police was Patil. As soon as he reached near them from
the stair case they heard noise as “Mara Ani Sarvanna
Kapa” from the side of gallery. All the five accused were
coming while they (witness and others) were in front of
the Court hall. Accused No.2 was armed with Koyata,
accused No.3 was armed with sword. Accused No.5 Kailas
was holding a sword and accused Nos. 1 and 4 were holding
Koyatas. All the accused were aggressive and accused No.2

¶39

( 12 ) criapl175.03

¶40

was instigating rest of the accused for making attack on
them. He was uttering words 'Cut the Advocate Shri.
Sushil Atre and accused' i.e. accused in the Sessions
Case. When the accused were at a distance of 5 to 6 feet
Police Constable Yuvraj Nagrut (PW-3) who was having
carbine restrained them and said to these accused persons
not to make attack on the accused in the said Sessions
Case. All the accused have raised hands with weapons to
make attack on them. Meanwhile, Police Constable Yuvraj
Nagrut (PW-3) fired through carbine. It was hit to the
roof of the building. The accused persons throwing
weapons at our side, fled away on hearing the noise of
fire. While the accused persons running away in the Court
premises the Police caught them and PSI Ufad came to them
and told that accused were arrested. Then in the security
they (PW-2 and others) were taken in the Sub-Jail,
Jalgaon.

¶41

10.In the cross-examination PW-2 has stated that
when the accused persons threatened them Police were
alongwith them. On 28.04.1999 they had informed to their
Advocate Sushil Atre that accused persons had threatened
them on 16.04.1999. Admittedly, the prosecution has not
examined Advocate Sushil Atre or three policemen who had
escorted accused in the said Sessions case on 16.04.1999.

¶42

( 13 ) criapl175.03

¶43

In fact, the prosecution should have examined them.
Therefore, the evidence of Rajesh (PW-2) regarding threat
given to him and others on 16.04.1999 by the accused is
not believable.

¶44

11.In the cross-examination Rajesh (PW-2) has
further stated that police recorded his statement on
30.04.1999. He had stated before Police that on
28.04.1999 accused Nos. 3 and 5 Vilas and Kailas were
present in the Court hall with accused No.2. He had also
stated before police that their Advocate Sushil Atre met
them and came down. He also stated before police that
Police Constable Lingayat came to them and told to Police
guards to load their guns. He stated before Police that
PSI Ufad had came to them and told that they arrested the
accused. He could not assign the reason as to why above
facts did not find place in his statement before police.
He again stated that he had not stated before police that
PSI Ufad had came to them and informed that they have
arrested the accused. Thus, the above evidence of PW-2
amounts to material omission in his statement before
police and improvement while deposing before the Court
and therefore, his evidence in respect of above fact is
not believable.

¶45

( 14 ) criapl175.03

¶46

12.Moreover, in the cross-examination PW-2 has
stated that Police Constable Yuvraj (PW-3) did not say to
the accused persons not to make attack on the accused in
the said Sessions Case. He stated before Police that all
the accused raised hands with weapons to make attack on
them. He stated that he also stated before Police that on
hearing the noise of fire the accused persons throwing
weapons at their side fled away. He could not assign
reason of absence of above facts in his statement before
police. Thus, the evidence of Rajesh (PW-2) that Police
Constable Yuvraj said accused not to make attack on them,
that all the accused raised the hands with weapons to
make attack on them (PW-2 and others) and that on hearing
the noise of fire the accused persons throwing weapons at
their side fled away is amounting to omission in his
statement before police and improvement while deposing
before the Court and therefore said evidence is not
believable.

¶47

13.Rajesh (PW-2) has admitted that after delivery
of the judgment when they were taken out of the Court
hall there were near about 50 persons including Advocates
and Court staff in varanda. So also, he admitted that at
the time of firing there were Advocates, litigants and
Court staff members in the varanda. Admittedly, the

¶48

( 15 ) criapl175.03

¶49

prosecution has not examined any independent witness
from the Court Staff, Advocates and litigants. Rajesh
(PW-2) accused in the said Sessions case against whom
there was charge of murder has admitted that he filed two
bail applications. His all bail applications including
the bail application before the High Court were rejected.
Therefore, when he and others were acquitted in the said
Sessions Case he had reason to depose against the accused
/relatives of the deceased Sanjay Sonawane in the said
Sessions Case. For the above reasons and due to omissions
referred to above in his evidence and particularly in
respect of the omission that all the accused raised hands
with weapons to make attack on them i.e. witness and
others the evidence of PW-2 Rajesh is not believable and
sufficient to infer that the accused attempted to commit
his murder. Another reason to hold this is that
admittedly there is no evidence to show that any of the
accused assaulted Rajesh (PW-2) by the alleged weapons.
Moreover, the evidence of Rajesh (PW-2) is not sufficient
to infer that all the accused were members of unlawful
assembly, that they were armed with deadly weapons like
swords and koyata and that the accused attempted to
commit his murder.

¶50

14.The evidence of next eye witness Police

¶51

( 16 ) criapl175.03

¶52

Constable Yuvraj Nagrut (PW-3) is that on 27.04.1999 he
was allotted duty of guards for accused and the said duty
was performed on 28.04.1999. Alongwith him there were one
Head Constable and four more Constables as a guards. He
was given 9 mm carbine and one of the constables was
given 303 rifle. He deposed that on 28.04.1999 at about
10.00 am they had taken Rajesh Sonawane (PW-2) and other
four accused to produce them before the Court in the
Sessions Case No.212/1998 and on that day judgment was to
be delivered. He stated that before one hour of delivery
of judgment accused persons in the said Sessions case had
told them that relatives of the deceased would make
attack on them. As regards the incident he stated that
the judgment was delivered in the said Sessions Case.
After 10 to 15 minutes of the judgment near about 6 to 7
relatives of the deceased armed with weapons and choppers
were found running towards the accused in the said
Sessions Case. They asked them to stop in spite of that
they rushed upon the person of the accused in the said
Sessions case and guards. He stated that they feel that
those persons would kill them and the accused in the said
Sessions case. So, he took the position with carbine. He
fired one round towards the roof. After fire two persons
out of them threw weapons on the ground and all ran
towards the ground floor. Thereafter, he learnt that PSI

¶53

( 17 ) criapl175.03

¶54

Ufad and some police officials caught them with weapons.
He stated that said incident occurred after 01.00 pm.
After half and hour of the incident the accused in the
said Sessions Case were reached to the Sub-Jail, Jalgaon.
He stated that accused persons in the Court are same who
had rushed upon them holding weapons. He lodged the FIR
(Exh.32) on behalf of the State.

¶55

15.In the cross-examination he stated that he had
stated at the time of filing FIR that after 10 to 15
minutes of his going to phone 6 to 7 persons armed with
swords were found rushing towards them. He admitted that
in the Court hall at the time of delivery of judgment
relatives of the accused and some Advocates were present.
He had admitted that he had seen assailants first time on
the day of incident. And after the incident for the first
time he had seen the accused before the Court. He stated
that at the time of lodging FIR he stated that 6 to 7
relatives of the deceased with chopper and swords rushed
towards accused in the said Sessions Case. He could not
assign reason why said fact is not specifically mentioned
in the FIR (Exh.32) that there were 6 to 7 relatives of
the deceased and some of them were holding choppers.
Therefore, his evidence that there were 6 to 7 relatives
of the deceased and some of them were holding choppers is

¶56

( 18 ) criapl175.03

¶57

amounting to omission in the FIR and improvement while
deposing before the Court. Moreover, he had seen the
assailants for the first time on the day of incident and
no identification pared was conducted to identify the
accused by this witness. As referred earlier the evidence
of Rajesh (PW-2) shows that accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 were
armed with Koyatas and accused Nos. 3 and 5 were armed
with swords. However, PW-3 has not specifically deposed
that particular accused was holding particular weapon as
deposed by Rajesh (PW-2) and his evidence that 6 to 7
relatives of the deceased were armed with swords and
choppers were found running towards the accused in the
said Sessions Case is vague and not consistent with the
evidence of Rajesh (PW-2) one of the accused in the said
Sessions Case. Rajesh (PW-2) has not stated that any of
the accused was holding chopper.

¶58

16.Yuvraj (PW-3) also admitted that at the time of
delivery of judgment in the Court hall relatives of the
accused and some Advocates were present. As observed
earlier the prosecution has not examined independent
witnesses present on the spot of incident i.e. the
varanda of the Court at the time of incident. Yuvraj (PW-
3) was guard on the day of incident and alongwith other
constables he had brought accused in the Court. He being

¶59

( 19 ) criapl175.03

¶60

the police witness and as entire incident was over within
one minute as per his evidence and as he had seen the
accused assailants for the first time in the Court on the
day of incident and as there is no consistency in his
evidence and in the evidence of Rajesh (PW-2) regarding
weapons with the accused his evidence is not sufficient
to infer that the accused formed unlawful assembly, that
being member of unlawful assembly they were armed with
deadly weapons and that they attempted to kill PW-2. His
evidence of course shows that he fired one round towards
roof but the same is not sufficient to infer that he
fired round as accused came upon guards and the accused
in the said Sessions case to attack on them as alleged by
the prosecution.

¶61

17.The next piece of evidence relied upon by the
prosecution is panchanama of spot of incident (Exh.24),
panchanama of seizure weapons (Exh.25) and panchanma of
one carbine and one empty cartridge (Exh.26) in presence
of Panchas Dalsherkha Pathan (PW-1) and Jeevan Omkar
Mahajan by Police Inspector Patil (PW-4). Panch
Dalsherkha Pathan has not supported the prosecution as he
has denied that all the above said three panchanamas were
prepared in his presence. He has simply admitted his
signatures on the said panchanamas. The prosecution has

¶62

( 20 ) criapl175.03

¶63

not examined another Panch Jeevan Mahajan. Police
Inspector Patil (PW-4) has stated that he visited the
spot and prepared spot panchanama (Exh.24). He stated
that accused and the weapons were taken in the custody in
the Court premises and that seizure panchanama (Exh.25)
showed to him is the same. He also stated that the
complainant has deposited cartridge and carbine as per
panchanama (Exh.26). On the basis of his evidence at the
most it can be said that he prepared panchanama of spot
of incident (Exh.24) and seized carbine and empty
cartridge as per panchanama (Exh.26) on producing them by
the complainant (PW-3) Police Constable Yuvraj. But, his
evidence is not sufficient to infer that he seized one
sword from the accused No.5 Kailas, One sword from the
accused No.4 Vinod, one Koyata from accused No.3 Vilas
and one Jambiya from accused No.2 Popat as alleged in the
panchanama (Exh.25) as panch Dalsherkha Pathan (PW-1) has
not supported the prosecution case and he (PW-1) has not
specifically stated regarding seizure of said swords from
the above said accused. So also, evidence of PW-4 is not
sufficient to infer that he seized sword and one koyata
which were thrown by the accused at the spot of incident
as he has not specifically stated that said articles
which were allegedly thrown by the accused at the spot of
incident were deposited by PSI Ufad and then he had

¶64

( 21 ) criapl175.03

¶65

seized the same. For the above reasons the evidence
adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to state
that the accused were armed with swords, Koyata and
Jambiya at the material time of incident in contravention
of the provisions of Arms Act. Thus, circumstantial
evidence in the form of panchanamas (Exh.24,25 and 26) is
of no help to the prosecution to state that accused were
members of unlawful assembly, they were armed with deadly
weapons and that they had attempted to commit the murder
of Rajesh (PW-2).

¶66

18.For all the reasons discussed above, we hold
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not
sufficient to infer that accused were members of unlawful
assembly and the common object of said assembly was to
attempt to commit murder of Rajesh (PW-2) and others,
that the accused members of said unlawful assembly were
armed with deadly weapons and that the accused being
members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of common
object of said assembly attempted to commit murder of the
accused in the said Sessions Case and that accused
possessed the weapons like swords without pass or permits
in contravention of Section 4 of the Arms Act. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section
307 r/w Section 149, Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC and

¶67

Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act.The trial Court
has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove
these offences against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and rightly acquitted them of the said offences by
the impugned judgment and order. The said view taken by
the trial Court is reasonable and possible view. There is
no error in appreciating the evidence by the trial Court.
Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order. Therefore, the appeal being
devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, we dismiss the same. The bail bonds of the
accused Nos.1,4 and 5 are cancelled.

¶68

VishalK/ criapl175.03

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Murlidhar Jagtap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Murlidhar Jagtap and Ors.

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

Rakesh Dhulichand Jaiswal Vs Vaishali Rakesh Jaiswal

Rakesh Dhulichand Jaiswal Vs Vaishali Rakesh Jaiswal

The State of Mah. Vs Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive

Nilkanth Laxman Wankhede and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Madan Manik Dalwale and Ors.

Dhanraj S/O. Rajesaheb Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.