High Court

Legal Reasoning

1appln-01-2020.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 20201.Nagesh s/o Baliram Lagad,Age; 18 years, Occu: Education,R/o Karmavir Boys Hostel, in front of S.T. Office, Renapur Naka, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.2.Komal Baliram Lagad,Age: 16 years, Occu: Education,Minor U/g of her father Bairam s/o Narayan Lagad,Age: 48 years, Occu: Agril.,R/o Talegaon (Bk), Tq. Dharur,Dist. Beed...Applicants-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station,Dindrud, Dist. Beed2.Rajkanya Mahadeo LagadAge : 45 years, Occu: Household,R/o Telgaon (BK), Tq. Dharur,Dist. Beed....RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the Applicants : Mr. S. J. SalunkeA.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. G.A. KulkarniAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V. S. Sakhare h/f. Mr. S. A.Ambad…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. 2appln-01-2020.odtDATED : 9th JANUARY, 2025, 2024.JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :1.The applicants in the present proceeding are arrayed as accusedNos.3 and 4 in FIR No.89/2019 registered with Dindrud Police Station,District Beed on 10.05.2019 for the offence punishable under Sections328, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2.Respondent No.2 is the informant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 arefather and mother respectively of the present applicants. However, theFIR is challenged by accused Nos.3 and 4 only. The father of presentapplicants, i.e., Baliram Lagad and husband of respondent No.2 are realbrothers. As per the contents of the FIR on 30.04.2019 at about 9 p.m.respondent No.2 had been to the house of accused No.1-Baliram Lagadto discuss a matter in relation to a plot which is stated to have beenacquired by the said Baliram Lagad and Mahadeo Lagad, i.e., husbandof respondent No.2, jointly. Respondent No.2 alleges that since BaliramLagad had got his name alone recorded against the said plot withouther consent she had gone to his house to make inquiries in that regard.Respondent No.2 states that at that time, the present applicants andtheir mother, Meerabai Lagad came outside the house and startedquarrel with her. She alleges that the present applicants and their 3appln-01-2020.odtmother started beating her by inflicting fist blows and kicks. She thenalleges that Meerabai Lagad went inside the house and brought somebottle and the liquid in the said bottle was forcibly administered to herby Meerabai. She alleges that applicant No.1 was saying thatrespondent No.2 is all alone and they should kill her there and then.She had further stated that after she fells unconscious, one AnkushDhumal, Baburao Dhumal and the accused No.1-Baliram took her to aprivate hospital from where she was shifted to Government Hospital,Ambajogai. She claims that she was taking treatment at Ambajogaifrom 01.05.2019 to 07.05.2019 and thereafter she has lodged the FIRon 09.05.2019 which came to be registered on the subsequent day, i.e.,10.05.2019. The present applicants have challenged the FIR in thepresent proceedings. It will be pertinent to mention here that at therelevant time both the applicants were minors. 3.Mr. S. J. Salunke, the learned Counsel appearing for theapplicants has argued that even if the contents of the FIR are acceptedto be true and correct on their face value it can be seen that offenceunder Section 328 cannot be attributed to the present applicants. In asmuch as admittedly they did not administer any substance torespondent No.2 in order to attract Section 328. With respect to otherconsequences, he submits that they are non cognizable and therefore 4appln-01-2020.odtthe FIR cannot be registered. He has pointed out that according to theFIR, Baliram, i.e, the father of the applicants who is arrayed as accusedNo.1 had taken respondent No.2 to hospital for treatment. This,according him, falsifies the allegations levelled in the FIR. He alsopoints out to a document filed with the petition as Exhibit-E to contendthat property was mutated in his name as well as in the name ofrespondent No.2. He states that other property in the village which wasancestral property was mutated in names of five legal representatives.By drawing attention to the documents he submits that the entirefoundation to the case, i.e., dispute in relation to the property is basedon falsehood. He further submits that leading the FIR as it is an offenceunder Section 328 can at best be attributed only to accused No.2 andnot to the present applicants who are accused Nos.3 and 4. He furthersubmits that the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (“RFSL”) Reportdated 07.08.2019 reveals that there was no insecticide sample collectedfrom respondent No.2. As regards the report relating to bottle whichconfirms existence of pesticides he submits that the incident hadallegedly occurred on 30.04.2019, the bottle was obviously seized afterFIR was lodged. The FIR was lodged on 10.05.2019 and as such it isunconceivable that the bottle which was forwarded to RFSL was theone which was used while the alleged offence was committed on30.04.2019. 5appln-01-2020.odt4.He lastly submits that even if the contents of the FIR areaccepted to be true including the allegation that the said pesticide wasadministered to respondent No.2, offence under Section 328 will not bemade out against the applicants, since, admittedly they did notadminister the pesticide. He states that the other offences are noncognizable and therefore the FIR should be quashed.5.Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Statesubmits that the common intention of all the accused can be inferred,since, as per the FIR, accused Nos.2 to 4 were jointly beatingrespondent No.2. He submits that at that moment accused No.2 wentinside the house and brought that bottle containing pesticides andforcibly administered the pesticides to respondent No.2. He thensubmits that as per the FIR, applicant No.1 was saying that sincerespondent No.2 does not have anybody to support her they shouldtake advantage of the situation to kill her. This, according to thelearned A.P.P., gives rise to inference of common intention. Shri. V. A.Sakhare, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 supports the contentionsadvanced by the learned A.P.P. and further elaborate the submissions.6.Having heard the respective Counsel appearing in the matter, we 6appln-01-2020.odtfind that the act of administering insecticides is attributed to accusedNo.2 alone. It also appears from reading of the FIR that the quarrel hadensued between respondent No.2 on one side and the presentapplicants and their mother, Meerabai on the other. The allegation inthe FIR is that Meerabai went inside the house and brought a bottlecontaining medicine and administered the same forcibly to respondentNo.2. It is not alleged that the present applicants aided or assisted theact of administering pesticides. It will also be pertinent to mention thatwhile the quarrel had started the applicants could not have imagined orvisualized that their mother would bring the bottle containingpesticides and administer it to respondent No.2.7.Having regard to the contents of the FIR common intention canbe attributed to the applicants only for the act of beating which is a noncognizable offence under Section 323. Respondent No.2 was taken toS.R.T.R. Government Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai fortreatment. The injury certificate dated 01.05.2019 records a entry incolumn of nature of injury as poisoning. A sample was drawn from thepatient/respondent No.2 and sent to Regional Forensic ScienceLaboratory (RFSL). The RFSL report dated 07.08.2019 does not revealexistence of any poison in the said sample. It will also be pertinent tomention that the prosecution has allegedly seized a bottle containing 7appln-01-2020.odtpesticide from the house of the applicants on 28.05.2019 i.e. 28 daysafter the date of incident. RFSL report dated 07.08.2019 with respect tocontents of the said bottle show existence of insecticide in the bottle. Itshould however be noticed that result of sample drawn from body ofrespondent No.2 does not show existence of poison/pesticides.Therefore, it cannot be said that the pesticide which was seized fromthe house of the applicants was administered to respondent no.2. 8.The material on record and more pertinently the FIR itself doesnot indicate that the present applicants have administered theinsecticides. Likewise, it does not appear from the material on recordthat they had assisted accused No.2 in any manner whatsoever whileshe was allegedly administering pesticide to respondent No.2. We havealready observed that accused No.2 had brought the bottle in the midstof the fight and therefore common intention for administering poisonalso cannot be attributed to the present applicants. There is absolutelyno material to infer that the present applicants are responsible for thealleged offence under Section 328 of IPC or that they shared anycommon intention for the offence under the said provision withaccused No.2. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would beserved in prosecuting the applicants for the offence punishable underSection 328 of IPC. The other provisions mentioned in the FIR are non 8appln-01-2020.odtcognizable, we are therefore of the opinion that the FIR againstapplicants needs to be quashed. In the result, we pass the followingorder :- ORDER(i) The application is allowed.(ii) FIR No.89/2019 registered with Police Station, Dindrud,District Beed for the offence punishable under Section 328,323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and RegularCriminal Case No.111/2020 pending before learned JudicialMagistrate First Class at Dharur are quashed against theapplicants, namely, (1) Nagesh s/o Baliram Lagad and (2)Komal Baliram Lagad.[ROHIT W. JOSHI] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGEA.G.Narwade