High Court
Legal Reasoning
Cri.Appeal.800.2003-1-IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 800 of 2003WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2610 OF 20241.Sadanand S/o. Yohan Avad,Age : 57 years, Occu. : Labourer,R/o. Dhakefal, Tq. Paithan,Dist. Aurangabad.2.Shamrao s/o Premchand Avad,Age : 42 years, Occu. : Labourer,R/o. Dhakefal, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad.3.Bhausaheb s/o Sadanand Avad,Age : 32 years. Occupation: Agriculture,R/o Dhakefal, Taluka Paithan,District Aurangabad.4.Chaburao s/o Yohan Avad,Age : 78 years. Occupation : Agriculture,R/o Dhakefal, Taluka Paithan,District Aurangabad.5. Nirmalabai w/o Dharmraj Avad,Age : 32 years, Occupation: Labourer, R/o Dhakefal, Taluka Paithan,District Aurangabad.6.Laxman Mohan Bhavar,Age : 32 years. Occupation : Agri R/o Newasa, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar … Appellants.VersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.I., M.I.D.C.,Police Station, Paithan,Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad.… Respondent.
Legal Reasoning
Cri.Appeal.800.2003-2-…..Mr. N. K. Kakade, Advocate for Appellants.Mr. S. S. Dande, APP for Respondent - State.…..CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :17th FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :24th FEBRUARY, 2025JUDGMENT : 1.Appellants herein have taken exception to judgment andorder dated 05.12.2003 passed by learned Ist Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.148 of 2002,holding appellants guilty for offence punishable under sections 147,304-A r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code(IPC) and sentenced them for imprisonment as well as fine.FACTUAL MATRIX2.Conspectus of prosecution case in brief is that, on16.05.2001, daughter of informant had visited her father, requestingto carry presents for her husband and her brother-in-law on accountof marriage of her brother-in-law. Accused Francis father-in-law ofMartina also reached there and started abusing, thereby questioningwhy she came there. That time, another daughter of informantnamely Alpha, who was pregnant had also come there. Previously,Alpha had lodged report against her husband and in-laws forcommission of offence under section 498-A IPC. In all 21 accusedcame there and there was beating to both informant Peter as well as Cri.Appeal.800.2003-3-Alpha. They both were taken to Government hospital. On 17.05.2001,informant Peter lodged report against accused resulting intoregistration of crime bearing No. 51 of 2001.3.On completion of investigation accused persons werecharge-sheeted and tried before learned Ad-hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Aurangabad, who, on appreciating oral and documentaryevidence, held charges against present appellants proved, recordingguilt for above offences. Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has beenpreferred on various grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of Appellants :4.Learned counsel for appellants criticized the judgment onthe ground that, there is improper appreciation. According to him,21 persons were named, but their roles are not defined and onlyaccused nos.1, 2, 5, 15, 17 and 21 are picked up and chosen and heldguilty. Learned counsel took this court through the evidence ofinformant, his daughter Alpha (PW4) and would submit that, theirtestimonies are rendered doubtful in view of answers given by themin cross examination. Learned counsel also took this court throughthe medical evidence and pointed out that alleged occurrence is of Cri.Appeal.800.2003-4-16.05.2001, but doctor has not specifically attributed abortion due toalleged beating on such date, rather he pointed out that abortion is of29.05.2001 and as such there is no nexus with the occurrence andcharge under section 304-A IPC. He submitted that spot is notproved. That, independent witnesses have exaggerated the versionand therefore, it is his submission that, learned trial court ought notto have straightaway accepted prosecution version as proved. 5.In the alternative, it is his submission that, evenotherwise matter was between two families, who are related. That,due to matrimonial disputes, relations were strained, but subsequentto FIR, matter has been amicably settled between the parties. That,informant as well as his daughter, who is said to be victim, who havealso deposed in the very examination-in-chief to that extent and solearned counsel seeks matter to be compounded as now harmoniousrelations between parties are said to be restored. In support of such contentions, he seeks reliance on therulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahesh Chand andAnr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111 and Jalaluddin v. Stateof U.P. 2001 AIR SCW 2266. Cri.Appeal.800.2003-5-On behalf of Respondent – State :6.Learned APP opposed on the ground that there isconvincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence of informant, whohimself was injured. That, there is corroboration from another victimdaughter (PW4). That, medical evidence supports ocular and injuredaccount. That, there is evidence of independent witnesses andtherefore, according to learned APP, there is no infirmity in thefindings and conclusion recorded by learned trial Judge. Hesuggested that, matter being non compoundable, parties offerings inappeal for compounding the offence, cannot be considered. Thus, onboth above counts, he has opposed.EVIDENCE ON RECORD7.On re-appreciating the entire evidence, it is emergingthat, prosecution case is rested on oral evidence of 11 witnesses.Apparently, evidence of informant PW1, his daughter PW4 Alpha,PW9 Anita and PW10 Mahesh are of relevance and significance onthe point of occurrence. Coupled with it evidence of medical expertsPW7 Dr. Chavan and PW8 Dr. Goyal is also relevant. Rest are thepanchas and Investigating Officer.8. For proper appreciation and comprehension, it wouldfruitful to reproduce the very testimonies of relevant witnesses i.e.informant PW1, his daughter PW4 Alpha, PW7 Dr. Chavan, PW9 Cri.Appeal.800.2003-6-Anita and PW10 Mahesh in verbatim as has been stated in witnessbox in trial court.9.PW1 Peter informant is the father of victim. Relevantportion of his evidence at Exhibit 28 is as under:- “I know all the twenty-one accused present before theCourt today. The incident occurred on 16.05.2001. On that day,there was a marriage ceremony of the son of Francis YohanAvad, at Dhakefal. Said Francis is the father-in-law of mydaughter. The house of Francis is in front of my house and atdistance of about 50 feet. My daughter by name Martina is givenin marriage to Abasaheb, who is the son of Francis. My anotherdaughter by name Alpha is given in marriage to the cousin-brother-in-law of Martina and Manesh is the name of herhusband. The marriage of Amar Francis Avad was to take placeon 18.5.2001. But, on 16.5.2001, there was marriage ceremony,known as Haldi, at the house of Francis.2. On 16.5.2001, my daughter Martina came to me and toldme that, as there is a marriage of her brother-in-law, I shouldbring the presents to my son-in-law Abasaheb and his brotherManesh, by way of new-clothes. I told Martina that, I did notreceive any invitation card, for the said marriage. therefore, Iwill not give any such presents to her husband and his brother.When this talk of myself and Martina was going on, her father-in-law. i.e. Francis came to my house. He started abusing to mewhy Martina had come to my house, when my daughter Alphahad filed a case u/s. 498-A of the IPC against Sukhanand Yohan Cri.Appeal.800.2003-7-Avad and his son. Said Sukhanand is the real brother of Francis.When this abusing and talk were going on, my another daughterAlpha was also present, at that place, Alpha was carryingpregnancy of 5 months, at that time. When this abusing wasgoing on, rest of the accused came to the spot and they attackedon myself, my wife, my pregnant daughter Alpha and my sonVicky Peter Ghule. Accused Francis, Chaburao, Vilasrao,Shamrao, Sadanand have beaten me. Accused Shamrao,Bhausaheb, Anton, Vimalbai, Shantabai, Sarubai & Nirmalabaihave beaten to my daughter Alpha. Because of this beating, I hadbecome unconscious. The people gathered there have separatedthe quarrel. The guests, who had come to attend the ceremony,had taken myself for treatment, to the government hospital atDhakefal. Alpha was taken to the same hospital, myself andAlpha were referred to ghati hospital for further treatment.Bleeding had started to Alpha. We both were discharged fromghati hospital, on the next day. On 29.5.2001, Alpha was feelingsevere labour-pains, so, she was brought to ghati hospital,Aurangabad. There was an abortion of Alpha in the ghatihospital. This abortion has taken place, because of beating givento her on the day of the incident.3.After discharge, I had been to Paithan MIDC PS, on17.5.01 and I lodged the complaint, it is the same now shown tome, contents are true, it is marked at Exh.29. However, on mycomplaint, the police have registered the offence, ten daysthereafter. 4. The case, instigated by my daughter Alpha, ended incompromise. At present, Alpha is living with her husband and hisfamily. I had sustained the injuries on my chest and head, due to Cri.Appeal.800.2003-8-the beating. Alpha was admitted for 2 days, in the ghati hospital,when her abortion took place.10.PW4 Alpha is the victim. In her testimony at Exh.33 shedeposed as under :- “My marriage with Manesh took place about 5 yearsback. Two yrs. after marriage, I have filed a cri-case in the Courtat Paithan, u/s. 498-A of the IPC, against my husband, and fiveothers.2. The incident has occurred 2 years back, from today. Onthat day, there was a Haldi function, concerning the marriage ofmy cousin brother-in-law and the function was held at the houseof in-laws, namely, Sukhanand Avad and Anusaya Avad. At thattime, I was carrying pregnancy of five months. On that day, atabout 12 noon or 1 pm, I was standing with my father-complainant. The house of my father and that of my in-laws areopposite to one another & there is a road between the twohouses. At that time, my sister Martina had come to us, to talk. Atthat time, Madan Avad, Nirmalabai D. Avad Bhausaheb,Nirmala Bhausaheb Avad, Anusayabai, Vimalbai Avad,Shantabai Avad, Anton Avad, Baban Avad, Sarubai, Vilas Awad,and one Bhawale, in all 21 persons had come to our house.These persons had beaten to my father with fist and kick blows. Iwas also beaten by them with fist and kick blows on my stomach.My father had taken me to the govt hospital at Dhakefal. Fromthat hospital, in a govt. vehicle, I was being taken to ghatihospital, A'bad. But, on the way, my abortion had taken place. Iwas inpatient in ghati hospital, for 2 days. All the persons namedabove are present today, in the Court hall.” Cri.Appeal.800.2003-9-11.PW7 Dr. Chavan is the Medical Officer, who examinedPW1 informant and PW4 Alpha, narrated the injuries and identifiedthe injury certificates. In his testimony, he deposed as under :- “On 16.5.01, I was on duty as a casualty medical officer at ghatihospital, Aurangabad. On that day, the patient by name AlfaManesh Avad was referred to me from Dhakefal Rural Hospitaland I had examined her on that day. I noticed the followinginjuries on her person:1. contusion over abdomen, swelling over abdomen withP.V. bleeding with linliacking membrane.2. multiple contusion all over body, i.e. chest, abdomen,back, and both the hands. The injuries were caused within 12 hours by any hard andblunt object. Injury No.1 was grievous whereas No.2 were simplein nature. The patient had given the history of assault by manypersons on 16.5.01 at 12: 30 noon. 2.The same patient Alfa was admitted on 29.5.2001. Thepatient had a history of P.V. bleeding. The abortion had taken place, in fifth month pregnancy.The abortion has taken place after trauma of 16.5.2001. Thepatient was discharged on 30.5.2001. Dead male child wasremoved after curating. I have brought today with me theoriginal MLC register and the entries of exam. of said patient on16.5.01 and 29.5.01 are mentioned therein. Accordingly. I haveissued the two injury certificates, contents are true. I identify my Cri.Appeal.800.2003-10-signatures and are marked at Exhs. 38 and 39. The bleedingnoticed in the case of injured Alfa is possible, if she is given fistand kick blows on her abdomen.3. On 16.5.01, the patient by name Peter Paul Ghule wasreferred to me by Dhakefal PHC, and I examined him on thatday. The patient had the following injuries: 1. contusions over the abdomen and backside, withswelling over the abdomen, with severe pains, on abdomenand chest. 2. looseness and fracture of left pre-mor tooth, 3. contusion over the chest with severe pains,4. linear abrasion over right elbow joint. Injuries were caused within 12 hours before examination. InjuryNos.1, 3 and 4 were simple in nature, whereas No.2 wasgrievous.4. The patient Peter Ghule came to ghati hospital on29.5.2001, as he was transferred by the Medical Officer,Paithan. On that day, I examined him and he was having burningpains in chest and tongueless sensation, having a drug-re-action,and the patient was under treatment in medical ward, from 2 amto 5 am on 29.5.2001. The entries of exam of the said patientwere also made in the MLC register. Accordingly, I have issuedthe medical certificates of Peter, its contents are true and Iidentify it. Certificates are marked at Exhs. 40 and 41.”12.PW9 Anita is the niece of informant Peter. In hertestimony at Exh.45, she deposed as under :- Cri.Appeal.800.2003-11- “The complainant Peter Paul is my maternal-uncle. On8.5.2001, alongwith my children, I had come to Dhakefal, due tosummer vacation. PW.4 Alfa, on that day, was in the house of thecomplainant. Alfa had lodged a complaint with the police atPaithan against her husband and his family members, as she hadto face some family-difficulties, therefore, she was staying withher father-complainant. I lived with the complainant, for 20-22days, after 8.5.2001. 2. There was some function, at the house of Francis Avad, on16.5.2001, as, on next day, the marriage of his son was to takeplace. Martina is another daughter of the complainant. She waspassing from the house of the complainant, so, I had called her.When I was talking with her, in front of the house of thecomplainant, her father-in-law abused the complainant. Thecomplainant also came out of house and asked Francis, as towhy, he was abused and exchange of words started between thetwo. On noticing that quarrel, all the guests, gathered for themeals, rushed towards the house of complainant, There personswere armed with weapons like bat and had beaten to thecomplainant, so also to Alfa @ Archana, with bat, chappals, fistand kick blows. Alfa was beaten on her stomach. Baban, Shamand Sadanand Avad, Bhausaheb Avad, Laxman Bhawar, ManeshAvad, Chaburao Avad, and others have beaten to thecomplainant and Alfa. Both the complainant and Alfa were latertaken to the govn. hospital at Dhakefal, which is quite near thehouse of the complainant. From there, they were referred toghati hospital. Bleeding to Alfa had started, because she wasbeaten on waist and abdomen with kicks and chappals and fist-blow and at that time, she was pregnant. All the persons, who arenamed above, are present in the court hall, as accused.” Cri.Appeal.800.2003-12-13.PW10 Manesh is the nephew of informant Peter. In histestimony at Exh.46, he deposed as under :- “The complainant Peter is my maternal uncle. On 12.5.2001, Ihad come to village Dhakefal and was living there till16.05.2001. On 16.5.2001 at about 12 noon, I was sitting on acot, under a nim-tree, in front of the house of the complainant.Martina had come to see her father- complainant. She had justreached near the door of house and was followed by her father-in-law by name Francis. He questioned Martina, as to why shewas going to the house of the complainant, giving an abuse to thecomplainant. Complainant was standing there and he askedFrancis, as to whom, he was abusing. Exchange of words startedbetween the two. I saw that, the complainant was being beaten byShamrao, Madan, Francis, Vilas and others. Archana @ Alfawas pregnant and she was also beaten. The complainant andAlfa both had fallen on the ground. I tried to intervene, but, wasunable to walk and was using crutches, at that time. Thecomplainant and Alfa were sent to hospital, at Dhakefal.”14.Examination-in-chief of PW1 informant and PW4daughter Alpha are already reproduced in aforesaid paras. Now, letus see whether there is force in the submission of learned counselthat their substantive evidence is not consistent, general andomnibus against all 21 accused persons and as such their testimoniescannot be relied. Cri.Appeal.800.2003-13-15.On going through the cross examination of PW1informant, it is noticed that, more particularly in paragraph no.7,there are material omissions on the point of his daughter Martinaapproaching him for new clothes for her husband and her brother-in-law; about he conveying her about not receiving invitation aboutmarriage; about his wife and son also to be beaten by accused; notspecifically stating accused Francis, Chaburao, Vilasrao, Shamraoand Sadanand beating him. He admitted about not specificallynaming Shamrao, Bhausaheb, Anton, Vimalbai, Shantabai, Sarubaiand Nirmalabai beating his daughter also. He also admitted aboutinforming at the time of complaint about any bleeding to his daughterAlpha.16.PW4 Alpha victim in paragraph no. 3 of crossexamination, stated that, in criminal case filed by her, later on therewas compromise. She answered that, she is unable to remembername of accused and who beat her father. She was beaten by Nirmala,Bhausaheb and Bhawale. According to her, incident lasted for oneand half hour. She answered that she does not remember whethershe stated to the police about her abortion taking place. She is unableto assign why such material is not appearing in her statement. 17.In the cross examination of PW9 Anita, in paragraphno.4, there are omissions about Alpha bleeding due to beating. Cri.Appeal.800.2003-14-18.In the cross of PW10 Manesh, he stated that, at the timeof incident, he was having fracture injury to his leg, but he hadaccompanied complainant up to the hospital of Dhakephal. Rest is alldenial. 19.Conviction is recorded under sections 147, 304-A r/w149, 325 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 IPC. Above sections are invoked by applying 149 IPC, andtherefore, it would be equally important to also deal as to when saidsections gravitates and it further said to be brought home.20.Keeping above factors into, here, going by the chronologyof events as narrated by PW1 informant, it is emerging that, on16.05.2001, his daughter Martina approached him to suggest that heshould bring new clothes for her husband as well as brother-in-law.Martina is not examined here. Be it so. When father and daughterMartina both were talking, it is alleged that, father-in-law Fancisreached there, abused and he questioned his own daughter-in-lawMartina for visiting her parent’s house, when PW4 Alpha had filedproceedings under section 498-A IPC against Sukhanand (who isbrother of Francis) and his son. When abuses and talks were goingon, Alpha also came there and thereafter he has alleged that rest of Cri.Appeal.800.2003-15-the accused came on the spot and they attacked him, his wife andpregnant daughter Alpha. 21.He initially named five persons, Fancis, Chaburao,Vilasrao, Shamrao and Sadanand for beating him, but with what andwhere, has not been specified by him. Then he again named Shamrao,Bhausaheb, Anton, Vimalbai, Shantabai, Sarubai and Nirmalabai forbeating her daughter Alpha. Thus, in all 11 persons are specificallynamed, but specific roles have not come in his evidence. 22.Another injured PW4 Alpha is also examined andaccording to her, when her sister Martina had come to her father’splace and talks were going on, she claims that, Madan, Nirmalabai,Anusayabai, Vimalbai, Shantabai, Anton, Baban, Sarubai, Vilas andBhawale came, beat her father with fist and kick blows and also beather with fist and kick blows on the stomach.23.As stated above, PW1 Peter informant in his crossexamination, in paragraph no.7, has already admitted that, he didnot report in the complaint that his wife and sons were also beaten.This thus amounts to improvement. He also specifically admittedabout not naming accused Fancis, Chaburao, Vilasrao, Shamrao,Sadanand, Bhausaheb, Anton, Vimalbai, Shantabai, Sarubai and Cri.Appeal.800.2003-16-Nirmalabai for beating her daughter. He also admitted about notreporting any bleeding due to beating.24.Apparently, 21 persons were charge-sheeted, however,learned trial Judge recorded conviction and held guilty only sixpersons, i.e. Sadanand, Shamrao, Bhausaheb, Chaburao, Nirmalabaiand Laxman. Learned trial court seems to have taken into accounttestimonies of informant PW1 and his daughter PW4. However, inabove cross names of some of the accused are admitted by informanthimself for not being named in the complaint. Therefore, the mootquestion arises is on what basis out of 21, only 6 persons are heldguilty that too by applying section 149 IPC, when explicitly evidenceof informant and his daughter carries allegations in omnibus manner.25.Here, conviction is recorded for section 304-A IPC, butagain it is noticed, more particularly from the evidence of PW7 Dr.Chavan that, on 16.05.2001, he certified injuries to be simple innature except injury no.1 to PW4 and injury no.2 of PW1 to begrievous and rest injuries is to be simple. Abortion of PW4 is shown tobe done on 29.05.2001 i.e. after two weeks. But, amongst 21 accusedonly 06 are held guilty.26.Apparently, conviction is recorded by trial Judge for Cri.Appeal.800.2003-17-commission of offence under section 304-A IPC, however, on perusalof impugned judgment, it is noticed that, in paragraph no. 20 of thejudgment, the learned trial Judge has observed, the present accusedalso possibly cannot have any intention to cause the abortion toAlpha by their beating. Even the knowledge of their beating, with fistand kick blows was likely to cause such abortion, amounting toculpable homicide to foetus, cannot be attributed to the accused.”Having recorded such finding and opinion, when mens rea isconsidered as an essential component for attracting section 304-AIPC, the above findings do not reconcile with the opinion reached atby learned trial Judge that offence of 304-A IPC is made out.Requirement of mens rea to be essential, is dealt by the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Ham George; AIR1965 SC 722; Nathulal v. State of M.P., AIR 1966 SC 43; NareshKumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 (3) SCC 573; Jyotsna Sharma v.State of Uttarakhand, MANU/UC/0084/2022; Lalit Mohan Bhagat v.State of Uttarakhand, MANU/UC/0249/2022.27.There is conviction for offence punishable under section325 of IPC. PW7 Dr. Chavan, medical expert deposed that, PW4 Alphasuffered one grievous injury i.e. P.V. bleeding. But, again, whoamongst the 21 or who amongst the 6 actually is responsible, is notgetting clear. Merely by invoking section 149 IPC, out of 21 only 06 Cri.Appeal.800.2003-18-cannot be selected and held guilty unless it is shown that such 06persons also carried same common object in committing the crime.Going back to the chronology of events, incident seems to haveerupted suddenly i.e. only when Martina went to meet informant.Arrival of Alpha was not expected. However, she too has come on thescene. If section 149 IPC is to be invoked, then it is expected to be ofprosecution that all 21 accused were aware that incident of beatingtaking place and they indulging in the same. The Hon’ble Apex Courtin numerous judgments has held that, to convict person undersection 149 of IPC, prosecution has at the threshold to establishsharing of common object and then becoming part of unlawfulassembly. Each of the such person booked must be shown to beaware that the offence is likely to be committed and further toachieve the common object, they all became part of unlawfulassembly. To this extent, the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the caseof Naresh v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1094/2023, clarified legalposition for invoking section 149 IPC. This crucial aspect is missingin the case in hand and therefore, by applying above section, chosenfew cannot be held guilty. 28.Therefore, in the light of above discussion, evencommission of offence of two major sections 304-A and 325 are notproved beyond reasonable doubt. Cri.Appeal.800.2003-19-29.Learned counsel has in alternative made submission thatnow matter is resolved. Parties are relatives and harmony and peacehas been restored and they all unanimously on indulgence of otherrelatives have decided to compound the allegations. Learned counselhas placed on record above referred rulings, wherein Hon’ble ApexCourt has observed that, when matters are compromised and evenoffences are non-compoundable, permission to compound can begranted. 30.However, for above reasons, on meticulous re-appreciation of evidence and for the reasons stated above, on meritsitself case of prosecution is shaky and charges not being provedbeyond reasonable doubt, benefits goes to appellants. Hence, Iproceed to pass the following order :-ORDER(I)Criminal Appeal stands allowed.(II)The conviction awarded to appellants, namely, (1)Sadanand S/o. Yohan Avad, (2) Shamrao s/o PremchandAvad, (3) Bhausaheb s/o Sadanand Avad, (4) Chaburao s/oYohan Avad, (5) Nirmalabai w/o Dharmraj Avad, (6)Laxman Mohan Bhavar in Sessions Case No.148 of 2002 bythe learned Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,Aurangabad on 05.12.2003 for the offence punishable
Decision
Cri.Appeal.800.2003-20-under sections 147, 304-A r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 323r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, stand quashed and set aside.(III)The appellants stands acquitted of the offence punishableunder sections 147, 304-A r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and 323r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.(IV)The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.(V)The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to theappellants after the statutory period.VI)It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order inrespect of disposal of muddemal.VII)Criminal Application No. 2610 Of 2024 is also disposed of. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale