Laxman Sidha Vanmane & Ors v. The State of Maharashtra

Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Bhangale Apeal376.91 A.P.P. for the State.

2. The   challenge   in   the   appeal   is   to   the   convictions   and sentences   recorded   against   the   appellants   i.e.   original   accused Nos.1 Laxman Sidha Vanmane, 2 – Vithoba Sada Shendage, 3 – Revappa Sada Shendage, 4 Mallasha Sada  Shendage, 7 ­ Arjun Siddha Vanmane, 8 – Shivaji Siddha Vanmane, 10 – Arun Siddha Vanmane, 11 – Jalinder Laxman Vanmane, 14 – Dnyanoba Bandu Karande,   15   –   Rama   Bandu   Karande,   16   –   Mahada   Virappa Chougule,   17   –   Sada   Virappa   Chougule   and   27   –   Vasant Parameshwar   Karande   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   per   their original status as accused Nos.) by the judgment and order dated 1st June, 1991 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli.  It appears that in all 28 accused faced the trial in Sessions Case No.165 of 1988 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148. 302, 307, 326, 337 and 323 read with Section 149 of the   Indian   Penal   Code   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “I.P.C.”)and accused No.1 Laxman, accused No.2 – Vithoba and accused No.8 Shivaji   were   alternatively   charged   for   the   offence   punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and they were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of Maruti Tambe  and they Bhangale Apeal376.91 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/­ each and in default to suffer R.I. for one year each, Whereas   accused   No.4   Mallasha   was   convicted   for   the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/­ and in default to suffer R.I. for one year, whereas, Accused   Nos.1   –   Laxman,   2­   Vithoba,   3   –   Revappa,   4   – Mallasha, 7­ Arjun, 8 – Shivaji, 10 – Arun, 11 – Jalindar, 14 – Dnyanoba, 15 – Rama, 16 – Mahada, 17 – Sada and 27 ­Vasant, were   convicted   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   147 and 148 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced for each of the said offence to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/­, and in default to suffer R.I. for one month, each, and they were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/­ each, in default to suffer R.I. for three months, and whereas, Accused   Nos.1, 2, 3,, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17   and   27 Bhangale Apeal376.91 were   convicted   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   337 read with Section 149 of I.P.C., and they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/­, in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days each and they were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/­ each, in default to suffer R.I. for one month each, The   aforesaid   substantive   sentences   of   the   respective accused were directed to run concurrently, whereas accused Nos.5 –   Amodsidha,   6   –   Shankar,   9   –   Ashok,   12   –   Ambadas,   13   – Devendra, 18 – Laxman, 19 – Dhondiba, 20 – Arun, 21 – Balu, 22 – Shrimant, 23 – Dharmu, 24 – Gorakh, 25 – Vilas, 26 – Tukaram, and 28 – Limbaji were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 337 and 323 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. However,   during   the   pendency   of   the   present   appeal, accused No.1 Laxman Sidha Vanmane expired on 5th August, 2007 and accused No.7 Arjun Siddha Vanmane expired on 14 th  May, Bhangale Apeal376.91 2000   and accused No.16 Mahada Virappa Chougule expired on 10th  September,   2010   and   an   additional   affidavit   of   appellant No.11   Jalinder   Laxman   Vanmane   was   sworn   in   on   31st  March, 2012 and same was filed on behalf of appellants, annexing the photo­copies   of   the  death  certificates  of  the   dead   accused,  and accordingly,   present   appeal   stood   abated   against   the   deceased accused, and present appeal proceeds in respect of surviving 10 accused   only,   namely,   Accused   Nos.2   –   Vithoba   Shendage,   3   – Revappa Shendage, 4 – Mallasha Shendage, 8 – Shivaji Vanmane, 10   –   Arun   Vanmane,   11   –   Jalinder   Vanmane,   14   –   Dnyanoba Karande,   15   –   Rama   Karande,   17   –   Sada   Chougule   and   27   – Vasant Karande.

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follows: According   to   prosecution,   the   incident   occurred   on   30th June,   1988   at   about   6.00   p.m.   before   the   sunset,   when   the complainant party reached near Vasti of Shantabai Jagtap after hunting of rabbit, and since the Vasti of Revappa was adjacent to the field of Shantabai towards south, all the accused persons led by   accused   No.1   deceased   Laxman   and   deceased   Rama   Kare, Bhangale Apeal376.91 came from Revappa’s Vasti and they were armed with different weapons, such as, axes, sticks, etc. arrived at the group of Kolekar party   i.e.   the   complainant,   giving   the   slogans.     Thereafter, deceased accused No.1 Laxman and deceased Rama Kare asked the   complainant   party   why   they   had   broken   the   tradition   by performing the festival separately, and thereafter, the assault was mounted   and   since   the   assailants   from   the   accused   party   were armed   with   aforesaid   weapons,   the   persons   belonging   to complainant party started running but accused party chased them. The victim Maruti Tambe was accosted near the well in the field of Shantabai Jagtap by deceased accused No.1 Laxman Vanmane, deceased   Rama   Kare   and   accused   No.2   Vithoba   Shendage   who were armed with axes and accused No.8 Shivaji was armed with stick.     Accused  No.1  Laxman  attacked  on  victim   Maruti  Tambe and gave blow of axe on his ahead and others followed him.

4. PW­5   Dnyanoba   Kolekar   sensed   the   danger   and   started running   away   but   he   was   chased   by   accused   Nos.3   Revappa Shendage,   4   –   Mallasha   Shendage,   27   –   Vasant   Karande,   10   ­ Arun Vanmane, and accused No.4 Mallasha gave a blow of axe on the   right   side   of   his   head,   whereas   accused   No.27   Vasant   and Bhangale Apeal376.91 accused No.10 Arun gave stick blows on his hands, back and legs, whereas   the   other   assailants   assaulted   different   persons   from complainant party by sticks, stones and fists and Shantabai Jagtap and her son Arvind also sustained injuries due to stone pelting.

5. The aforesaid incident of assault was accomplished between

6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 30th  June, 1988 and the complainant PW­5 Dnyanoba and others ran towards their houses and closed the doors thereof apprehending further danger.  In the midnight, the police personnel arrived at Kolekar Vasti and PW­5 Dnyanoba and   Sayappa   were   taken   to   dispensary   at   Kontyal­Boblad   and other   injured   persons   followed   them   by   bullock   carts.     At   this juncture, they came to know that Maruti was also brought there and was shifted to Bijapur hospital as his condition was serious as well as the aforesaid injured were also sent to Bijapur hospital.

6. PW­15   HC   Vibhute   was   in­charge   of   the   Umadi   Police Station, who recorded the complaint (Exh.57) of PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar   and   offence   came   to   be   registered   against   the   accused persons   and   investigation   was   taken   over   by   HC   Vibhute. Accordingly,   he   drew   the   inquest   panchanama   (Exh.35)   of   the Bhangale Apeal376.91 dead body of victim Maruti Tambe at Bijapur and the postmortem on the said dead body was also performed at Bijapur.  HC Vibhute went   to   Karewadi   at   about   1.00   p.m.   and   prepared   the panchanama   of   the   scene   of   offence   (Exh.38)   and   one   stick, muffler, Gupta, paid of chappal found at the scene of offence in the   field   of   Shantabai   Jagtap   were   seized   therein.     Moreover, blood samples and sample of soil were taken from the said spot as well as HC Vibhute recorded statements of some of the witnesses.

7. Thereafter,   PSI   Shirke   took   over   the   investigation   who made   the   efforts   to   trace   the   accused.     He   also   recorded statements   of   witnesses   and   searched   the   house   of   deceased accused  No.1  Laxman and  his  brothers  and three sticks,  Nehru shirt  and  two  dhotis  were  seized  therefrom  under  panchanama Exh.40 and also two sticks found at the house of accused No.8 Shivaji were also seized under the panchanama Exh.41 and also one bandi, cap, pair of chappal, three axes and one spear were in the manure pit were also seized from the house of accused No.2 Vithoba and his brothers under the panchanama Exh.42 and one battle axe and dhoti were seized from the house of Rama Kare under   the   panchanama   Exh.44   and   one   stick   and   dhoti   were Bhangale Apeal376.91 attached   from   the   house   of   accused   No.3   Revappa   under   the panchanama   Exh.43.     Moreover,   accused   No.13   Devendra   and seven others were arrested on  2nd July, 1988 and also Dhondiba and 15 others were arrested on 3rd July, 1988. Clothes of deceased Maruti were also seized under the panchanama under Exh.47 and also   clothes   of   PW­5   were   also   seized   under   the   panchanama Exh.48 on 8th July, 1988 and clothes of accused No.7 Arjun were attached   under   the   panchanama   Exh.49,   whereas   clothes   of injured witnesses PW­7 Baju Sayappa Kolekar were seized under the panchanama Exh.48.

8. Thereafter on 13th July, 1988 accused No.27 – Vasant made a   confessional   statement   and   produced   12   sticks   which   were attached  under   the panchanama Exh.52.    Thereafter  the  seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyzer’s office at Pune, for examination   purpose   on   11th  August,   1988.     Accordingly,   after completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed against all the accused   before   the   learned   J.M.F.C.,   Jath.     Since   the   charges levelled against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned J.M.F.C., Jath committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Sangli.  Accordingly, the learned Additional Bhangale Apeal376.91 Sessions   Judge,   Sangli   framed   the   charges   against   the   accused persons on 29th August, 1990 which are at Exh.1, but the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

9. Subsequently,   due   to   the   death   of   accused   No.15   Rama Karande,   his   name   was   deleted   and   the   charge   was   suitably modified on 1st June, 1992.  The defence of the accused is of total denial.  While recording statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused produced documents pertaining to counter­case being Sessions Case No.166 of 1988 along with the   list   of   documents   Exh.91   which   was   filed   by   accused   No.3 Revappa   and   story   narrated   in   the   said   F.I.R.   filed   by   accused No.3 was adopted as defence in the present case.   According to them, the persons belonging to complainant party had besieged accused No.3 Revappa’s Vasti and pelted stone towards them and in the said stone pelting, accused No.7 Arjun Vanmane, Mhalappa Vanmane, accused No.4 Mallasha Shendage and accused No.16 Mahada Chougule sustained injuries and according to them, they did  not  assault  any  person from   complainant  party,   as alleged. However, the accused neither examined themselves on oath nor examined any defence witness. Bhangale Apeal376.91

10. To   substantiate   the   charges   levelled   against   the   accused persons,  the  prosecution  examined  as  many  as  15  witnesses  as mentioned below :­ PW 1 ­ Prakash B. Patil ­ panch witness. PW 2 – Dhondiba B. Tambe – panch witness. PW 3 – Tukaram Dada Shinde – panch witness. PW 4 ­  Sandeep B. Waghmare – Circle Officer PW 5 ­  Dnyanoba Kolekar – injured complainant. PW 6 ­  Dr.Chandrashekhar Balmatti, M.O. PW 7 ­  Baju Sayappa Kolekar – injured eye witness. PW 8 ­  Patlu Sayappa Kolekar – injured eye witness. PW 9 ­  Arvind A. Jagtap – turned hostile. PW 10 – Shantabai A. Jagtap – injured eye witness PW 11 – Arjun Banda Gopane – injured eye witness PW 12 – Tukaram Savala Kolekar – injured eye witness PW 13 – Sayappa Savala Kolekar – injured eye witness PW 14 – Dinkar S. Shjirke, I.O. PW 15 – Anna K. Vibhute – PHC, Umadi Police Station. Bhangale Apeal376.91 Accordingly,   the   prosecution   adduced   oral   evidence   and   also produced documentary evidence in support of the charges levelled against the accused.  After scrutiny the said oral and documentary evidence   and   also   after   considering   the   rival   submissions advanced   by   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   the   learned   Trial Court   convicted   and   sentenced   the   present   appellants   as mentioned herein above by judgment and order dated 1st  June,

1991. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said convictions and sentences, the appellants have assailed the said convictions and sentences by filing the present appeal and prayed for quashment thereof.

11. Mr.Nitin   Pradhan,   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellants/accused   submitted   that   the   charge   (Exh.1)   framed against   the   accused   on  29th  August,   1990   discloses   the  time   of occurrence of the alleged incident between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 30th June, 1988, and according to the prosecution, the alleged incident of assault took place at the said time near the farm house of PW­10 Shantabai Jagtap which is adjacent to the farm house of accused   No.2   Vithoba   and   accused   No.3   Revappa,   who   reside together since real brothers.  On the said back ground, the learned Bhangale Apeal376.91 counsel   for   the   appellants/accused   argued   that   the   prosecution witnesses   have   not   deposed   the   time   of   incident   properly   and pointed out that the history of assault given in the medical case papers and medical certificates (Exh.69), the Medical officer PW­6 Dr.Chandrashekhar Balmatti has noted the time of assault at 9.00 p.m. as narrated by deceased Maruti Tambe.  It is submitted that the said statement and certificate  is more authentic and credit­ worthy   than   the   deposition   of   PW­5   Dnyanoba   Kolekar   i.e.   the complainant,   PW­7   Baju   Kolekar,   PW­8   Patlu   Kolekar,   PW­9 Arvind   Jagtap,   PW­10   Shantabai   Jagtap,   PW­11   Arjun   Gopane, PW­12   Tukaram   Kolekar   and   PW­13   Sayappa   Kolekar.     In substance,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   applicants/accused submitted that there is anomaly in the timing of the occurrence of the  incident  which  goes to  the  root  of  the  matter   and  sustains fatal blow to the case of the prosecution.

12. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, PW­6 Dr.Chandrashekhar   Balamatti,   Medical   Officer,   from   Primary Health   Centre   at   Kontyal­Boblad,   who   gave   the   history   and deposed   that   he   examined   the   aforesaid   witnesses   including Maruti Tambe at 11.45 p.m. or thereabout on 30.6.1988 and then Bhangale Apeal376.91 referred   the   patient   to   Civil   Hospital,   Bijapur.     Admittedly,   PI Kumbhar went along with them according to station diary entry No.73, but the prosecution has not examined the said important witnesses.   It is further submitted that the prosecution ought to have   brought   on   record   the   following   evidence,   such   as,   the O.P.D.   papers,   examination   and   medical   certificates   issued   by doctors attending the witnesses at District Hospital, statements of police officials on duty when all injured were admitted, Medico Legal   Register   entries   maintained   at   the   District   Hospital. Moreover, he also submitted that neither the officer from Gandhi Chowk   Police   Station,   Bijapur,   has   been   examined   by   the prosecution nor station diary entry has been brought on record.

13. Insofar as registering of F.I.R. is concerned, it is submitted that it is the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the investigation of crime has already started at

10.45 p.m. on 30th June, 1988 and Exh.72 discloses that at about

10.35 p.m. PHC Kumbhar and Vilasrao Jagtap informed on phone that Arjun Kolekar and Laxman Vanmane had fight at Karewadi and people were waiting on road.  The next station diary entry at

10.45 p.m. reveals that the police party left and reached Umdi Bhangale Apeal376.91 and found no one was waiting on the road.  The injured had been taken   to   Bijapur   Hospital.     Thus,   the   investigation   was   already started before registering the F.I.R. which was registered on next day i.e. on 1st July, 1988 at 11.15 a.m. at Umdi Police Station as C.R.No.25 of 1988 (Exh.57).  Besides, it is submitted that there is inordinate   delay   in   lodging   the   said   F.I.R.,   and   therefore,   the possibility and concoction and fabrication of the accused in the alleged crime cannot be ruled out.

14. Besides, it is submitted that the vital witnesses who were necessary to unfold the  case of the  prosecution,  have not been examined and the prosecution suppressed the material evidence from the Court and the said witnesses are ­ (i) PHS Kumbhar and the police officials who were posted at Kotyal­Boblad, (ii) Vilas Jagtap, and (iii) Subarao Jagtap who happened to be a witness to the   inquest   panchanama   (Exh.35)   of   the   dead   body   of   victim Maruti Tambe which was already drawn at Bijapur Hospital on

30.6.1988   i.e.   before   registering   the   F.I.R.   on   1st  July,   1988   at

2.45 a.m.

15. As regards the prosecution witnesses, it is submitted  that Bhangale Apeal376.91 although  it is alleged that  there are  seven eye­witnesses to the occurrence   of   incident,   the   said   witnesses   are   highly   interested and close relatives of victim, and therefore, no credence can be given to such interested testimonies which implicate the accused in the crime falsely.   Moreover, it is submitted that PW­9 Arvind Jagtap did not support the case of the prosecution partly and was declared hostile.  In respect of the time of occurrence of incident since he stated that the incident occurred at about 7.00   or 7.30 p.m. before the sunset.  As regards the alleged eye witness PW­10 Shantabai Jagtap is concerned, it is submitted that, in fact, she is a partisan   witness   and   she   has   implicated   only   accused   Nos.1   ­ Laxman, 2 ­ Vithoba, 3 ­ Revappa, and 8 Shivaji for assault on Maruti Tambe and she has not involved any other accused.  It is submitted that the said witness cannot be fully relied upon since the scene of offence, panchanama Exh.38 as well as deposition of PW­1 Prakash Patil and the sketch of scene of offence (Exh.54) shows   that   the   scene   of   offence   where   the   alleged   assault   on Maruti  took  place was surrounded by number of trees, but the sketch Exh.54 shows that the scene of offence appears to be about 500 ft. away from the house of Shantabai where she was standing and allegedly watching the incident and there were about 40 to Bhangale Apeal376.91 50   people   from   both   sides,   and   hence,   no   graphic   details   of assault could be provided as alleged by PW­10 Shantabai who was of 60 years old at the time of occurrence of the incident.

16. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that the prosecution evidence is scanty   and the best possible evidence has not been produced by the prosecution, and therefore,   it   is   unsafe   to   uphold   the   conviction   against   the appellants   upon   such   evidence.     Moreover,   it   is   submitted   that there are material omissions/contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and there are deformities and discrepancies therein and the learned Trial Judge has grossly erred in convicting the   appellants.     Hence,   he   submitted   that   considering   the cumulative effect thereof the applicants are entitled for the benefit of doubt.  Accordingly, it is urged that present appeal be allowed quashing and setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed upon the appellants and they be acquitted for the offences with which they were charged and convicted.

17. Alternatively,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants submitted that considering the totality of the evidence and very Bhangale Apeal376.91 role of accused No.2 Vithoba Shendage and accused No.8 Shivaji Vanmane in the occurrence of the incident is concerned, they have made out the case for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part   II)   of   I.P.C.,   and   therefore,   their   cases   be   considered thereunder   altering  their   convictions   for   the   offence  punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. to Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. and as regards sentences to be imposed upon them, it is submitted that the passage of lapse of time of 24 years and non­committal of any offence by them thereafter be considered.   Insofar as convictions and sentences imposed upon accused No.4 Mallasha Shendage for the   offence   punishable   under   Section   307   and   other   offences under I.P.C. are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants alternatively   submitted   that   considering   his   role,   his   case   be considered   sympathetically   and   even   if   his   conviction   is confirmed, his sentence be reduced having regard to the facts and circumstances   of   the   case.     As   regards   the   convictions   and sentences against rest of the accused are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants alternatively submitted that the accused Nos.10, 11 and 27 were of tender ages i.e. 22, 19 and 20 years respectively   at   the   time   of   occurrence   of   the   incident   and   also submitted that it was their first offence wherein they are found Bhangale Apeal376.91 guilty and further submitted that the atmosphere in the village is harmonious presently and with a view to maintain the prevailing peace  of   tranquility   in   the   village,   lenient   view   be   taken  while convicting   and   sentencing   the   said   accused   and   also   other accused.

18. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. countered the said argument and opposed the present appeal vehemently and submitted that to substantiate   the   charges   levelled   against   the   appellants   the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses, out of which PW­5   Dnyanoba   Kolekar   is   the   first   informant   and   injured   eye witness and PW­7 Baju Kolekar and PW­8 Patlu Kolekar are also the injured eye witnesses and PW­9 Arvind Jagtap although has been   declared   hostile,   has   supported   the   case   of   prosecution partly   and   PW­10   Shantabai   Jagtap   is   the   independent   eye witness   to   the   occurrence   of   the   incident   and   PW­11   Arjun Gopane, PW­12 Tukaram Kolekar and PW­13 Sayappa Kolekar are also injured eye witnesses to the occurrence of incident and the testimonies of the said eye witnesses connect the appellants with the crime.   Accordingly, it is submitted that there are seven eye witnesses   to   the   occurrence   of   the   incident   including   the Bhangale Apeal376.91 independent   eye   witness   PW­10   Shantabai   Jagtap   and   the   said eye   witness   account   amounts   to   cogent   and   incriminating evidence   against   the   appellants/accused   which   establishes   the complicity of the appellants in the crime.  It is further submitted that the evidence of the said eye witnesses has not been shaken in the cross­examination and the same deserves to be accepted to connect the appellants with the crime.

19. Insofar   as   the   alleged   anamoly   of   timing   in   the   alleged occurrence of incident, it is submitted that there is no substance in the   said   argument   canvassed   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellants since it is pertinent to note that even according to the defence also the incident took place at 8.00   to 8.30 p.m., since the report in counter case lodged by accused No.3 Revappa shows that   the   incident   might   have   taken   place   at   8.00   p.m.,   and therefore, it is submitted that no importance can be given to the theory   advanced   by   the learned   counsel for   the appellants/accused in respect of the alleged anomaly of time of occurrence of incident.  In the said context, it is submitted by the learned   A.P.P.   that   the   circumstances   brought   on   record   are indicative that the incident must have taken place at about 6.00 Bhangale Apeal376.91 p.m. or thereabout since it has come in the evidence that sun was still   in   the   horizon,   and   therefore,   there   was   visibility   and   the victims and independent witness Shantabai and PW­9 Arvind had full opportunity to identify the assailants.  It is also submitted that the   complainant   party   and   accused   party   are   from   the   same village, and therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity of the  accused and the said  eye  witnesses have attributed  specific roles to the accused in the occurrence of the incident.

20. Insofar   as   the   alleged   non­production   of   evidence/non­ examination   of   witnesses,   it   is   submitted   by   the   learned   A.P.P. that the quality of evidence is material and not the quantity and the   prosecution   has   adduced/produced   the   qualitative   evidence which involves the accused in the crime.  Accordingly, the learned A.P.P. canvassed that the learned Trial Judge has scrutinized and analyzed   the   evidence   in   proper   perspective   and   thereafter convicted and sentenced the accused by the impugned judgment and order dated 1st  June, 1991 and there is no glaring mistake, and therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal, and hence, consequently urged that present appeal be dismissed.

21. In   support   of   the   the   aforesaid   contentions,   the   learned Bhangale Apeal376.91 A.P.P. has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh @ Moha Dattatraya Bagal & ors. v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 3236.

22. In order to advert to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to deal with the material evidence adduced/produced by the prosecution.  At the outset, it is   necessary   to   ascertain   whether   deceased   Maruti   Tambe   met with   the   homicidal   death.     Admittedly,   postmortem   report   has been admitted by the accused which was marked as Exh.70 and also   O.P.D.   paper   were     admitted   by   evidence   and   same   was marked Exh.69.   The OPD paper Exh.69, dated 30th  June, 1988 discloses that it pertains to victim Maruti Tambe who sustained 8 wounds which include 5 incised wounds and one of them is on the   frontal   region   which   was   skin   deep   and   other   is   on   the posterior  part of head 15 cm  x  ½ cm  scalp deep bleeding was present; the third injury is on the left parietal region 4 cm x ½ cm skin deep, bleeding present; the fourth injury is on back   of left ear 4 cm x ¼ cm skin deep, bleeding present and the 5th incised would is on lower part of tibia 3 x  ¼ cm. Skin deep, bleeding present.     Moreover,   there   is   a   compound   fracture   of   left   tibia, Bhangale Apeal376.91 upper 1/3 bone is being seen in the wound 5 cm x 3 cm, bleeding present.   The other injuries were contused   lacerated wounds at nose, bleeding present and CLW over tip of nose bleeding present and   CLW   over   middle   of   left   chin   8   x   1   ½   cms   bone   deep, bleeding  present.    Moreover,  postmortem  notes Exh.70  disclose that   postmortem   was   performed   on   the   dead   body   of   Maruti Tambe between 11.10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 1.7.1988 and there was haematone just below the skin layer of the vault and there was fracture over the occipital bone and subdural haematone all over   the   brach   area.     The   said   postmortem   was   performed   by Dr.S.V.Shirol who issued the said postmortem note dated 6th July, 1988,   who   has   given   a   cause   of   death   due   to   shock   and haemorrhage   due   to   head   injury.     The   injuries   mentioned   in postmortem notes are in consonance with the OPD paper Exh.69 and   cumulatively   reflect   that   deceased   Maruti   Tambe   died homicidal death.

23. That takes us to the deposition of PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar i.e. the first informant who stated that there was enmity between his   group   and  the   group   of   the   accused   since  Gram   Panchayat elections   and   accused   No.1   Laxman   was   the   Sarpanch   of   the Bhangale Apeal376.91 village and deceased Rama Kare was the Police Patil of the village at that time.   The incident took place next day after Bendur i.e. “Pola”   which   is   known   as   Karnataka   Bendur.     On   that   day, bullocks are taken out in procession and the Police Patil is given the honour and his bullocks lead the procession which starts from Maruti Temple which was situated at the north of Karewadi.  The second   day   of   Bendur   is   known   as   “Ranatil   Kar”   (the   religious ceremony to be performed at the field) which consists of hunting of rabbit and head of the rabbit is cut down and buried by the side of Maruti temple and a small piece of flesh of rabbit is given to each villager at the house of the Police Patil and thereafter the ceremony of Bendur comes to an end.

24. As regards the occurrence of the incident, he stated that, after the said ceremony was over at about 5.30 p.m. on 30th June, 1988,   the   complainant   and   witnesses   about   20   to   25   persons started returning back to their Vasti by walk and they arrived at the Vasti of PW­10 Shantabai Jagtap by the cart road.   At this juncture, 30 to 40 persons including the accused came from the Vasti   of   accused   No.2  Vithoba   Shendage   and   deceased  accused No.1 Laxman and deceased RamaKare asked PW­5 complainant Bhangale Apeal376.91 Dnyanoba and deceased PW­7 Baju Kolekar why they have taken separate procession and they hunted and buried rabbit separately, and all the accused obstructed them near the house of Shantabai and started assaulting them, wherein accused No.1 Laxman used axe, deceased accused No.2 Vithoba was also armed with axe and accused   No.4   Mallasha   was   also   equipped   with   axe,   whereas accused No.3 Revappa, accused No.13 Devendra, accused No.12 Ambadas, accused No.16 Mahada, accused No.17 Sada, accused No.11 Jalinder, accused No.5 Amoghsidha, accused No.8 Shivaji and accused No.6 Shankar were also carrying sticks and others used   stones   for   hitting   the   victim.     Therefore,   deceased   Maruti Tambe and PW­5 Dnyanoba were frightened and started running away but they were chased.  Deceased Maruti ran away towards well   and   deceased   accused   No.1   Laxman   and   deceased   Rama Kare, accused No.2 Vithoba and accused No.8 Shivaji chased him and   they   assaulted   him   and   left   him   at   the   said   place   in   the injured condition.  Moreover, PW­5 Dnyanoba also caught hold of by accused No.3 Revappa, accused No.10 Arun and accused No.27 Vasant and he was dealt with sticks blow on his shoulders and accused No.10 Arun and accused No.27 Vasant gave stick blows from the front side, and hence, he   warded of the said blows by Bhangale Apeal376.91 hand,   and   therefore,   sustained   injuries   on   his   both   hands. Accused No.4 Mallasha also dealt with the axe blows on his head causing   bleeding   injury.     He   also   stated   that   deceased   Maruti Tambe   and   he   himself   ran   away   when   the   assault   started   and Maruti ran towards the Bajari crop which was near the well and he   ran   away   towards   chilly   crop.         Deceased   accused   No.1 Laxman and deceased Rama Kare gave axe blow on the head of Maruti Tambe, whereas accused No.2 Vithoba gave axe blow to Maruti and thereby Maruti fell down.   Moreover, accused No.8 Shivaji also gave axe blow on his left leg.  He further stated that, when he saw assault  on Maruti, he apprehended, and therefore, started running but accused No.1 Revappa dealt with stick blow on the left and right shoulders.  Accused No.10 Arun and accused No.27 Vasant dealt with stick blow to him from the front side, and therefore,   warded   of   the   said   blows   by   hands   but   sustained injuries on his fingers, wrist and forearms. Accused No.4 Mallasha gave   axe   blow   on   his   head   on   the   right   side   and   thereby   he sustained   bleeding   injury.     Other   accused   also   attacked   and assaulted   PW­7   Baju   Kolekar,   PW­8   Patlu   Kolekar,   PW­12 Tukaram   Kolekar,   PW­13   Sayappa   Kolekar   and   PW­11   Arjun Gopane,   Maruti   Kolekar   and   others.     Thereafter,   he   ran   away Bhangale Apeal376.91 towards   Vasti   but   Maruti   Tambe   was   lying   at   the   place   of   the incident.  Police personnel came to Vasti in the midnight and took him and PW­13 Sayappa to the dispensary at Kontyal­Boblad and other injured persons came to the dispensary in bullock cart.  He and   other   injured   persons   were   examined   and   were   sent   to Bijapur Hospital and at about 5 o’clock came to know that Maruti Tambe had expired.   The complaint was recorded by the police personnel which was treated as F.I.R. (Exh.57).

25. In   the   cross­examination,   it   has   come   on   record   that   the accused persons stay at different places and he also admitted that there was police bandobast at the village at the time of procession and two police officials were permanently stationed at Kontyal­ Bomblad for maintaining law and order.  He also admitted that he did  not  recognize the   assailants  who   assaulted   Maruti  since  he himself was under attack and was running away.   He also could not   identify   the   assailants   who   assaulted   the   other   injured persons.   A suggestion was given to him that he, Subrao Jagtap, Sayappa and others discussed the matter and concocted a story and lodged the police report as per the story made out by them and implicated the accused, but the same was denied by him. Bhangale Apeal376.91

26. The testimony of PW­5 Dnyanoba gave the graphic picture of   the   attack   by   the   accused   persons   upon   him   which   is corroborated by injury certificate Exh.63, and also about assault upon other witnesses and gave specific   account of the weapons by   which   accused   persons   were   armed   with   and   gave   blows thereof to the victim and other injured persons.  Subsequently, he conceded that he could not recognize the persons who assaulted Maruti  Tambe since he was under  attack  at that  time and was running away, as well as he could not identify the assailants who assaulted   other   injured.     At   the   same   time,   his   testimony   is eloquent in respect of the attack on deceased Maruti Tambe by deceased accused No.1 Laxman, accused No.2 Vithoba,  accused No.8 Shivaji and deceased Rama Kare by axe and also in respect of   attack   upon   the   other   injured   persons   by   the   other   accused persons.  In substance, the testimony of PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar is   categorical   in   respect   of   occurrence   of   the   first   part   of   the incident but he could not witness the later part of the incident i.e. the incident which occurred while he was running towards Vasti since he apprehended danger to his life.  The said testimony has not   been  shaken  in   the   cross­examination,   and   therefore,  same deserves to be accepted and is required to be believed. Bhangale Apeal376.91

27. PW­10   Shantabai   Jagtap,   who   testified   that   the   incident took   place   at   about   6.00   p.m.   in   the   evening   while   she   saw persons from Kolekar Vasti were coming towards her house from Karewadi to pass over her house, but when the said persons came upto her house, there was a riot, stones were thrown and some of the stones fell in her courtyard and she was also hit by one stone and fell down, as a result, her bangles were broken.  She further stated   that   the   persons   belonging   to   Vanmane   family   and Shendage family and their party indulged in stone pelting.   She further stated that the assailants were armed with sticks, and axe. PW­10 Shantabai  further  stated  that  she went forward with  an intention to tell them not to quarrel.   At this juncture, she saw that victim Maruti Tambe was assaulted by deceased accused No.2 Vithoba,   deceased   accused   No.1   Laxman,   accused   No.9   Shivaji and Rama Kare and they used axe and sticks therefor.   She also witnessed   that   other   persons   were   being   assaulted   at   different places within the distance of 20, 15 and 30 feet but she could not do anything, and therefore, she went inside the house and treated the injury.

28. In cross­examination, she stated that the sun was in the sky Bhangale Apeal376.91 but she could not see as it was behind her house but there was sufficient light at that time.  She also stated that she was hit by a stone during the assault.   A suggestion was put to her that since she was frightened, she left for house immediately after sustaining injury but same was denied by her.  It was also suggested to her that the incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. or 9.00 p.m., but the   same   was   also   denied   by   her.     Moreover,   it   was   further suggested to her that Subrao Jagtap and Vilasrao Jagtap belong to her Bhavaki, but the same was also denied by her.  It was further suggested to her that she did not see anybody assaulting anybody on that, but the same was denied by her.  The defence made the effort   during   the   cross­examination   by   giving   suggestions   that since she belongs to Bhavaki of Subrao Jagtap and Vilasrao Jagtap and she is the biased witness, but PW­10 Shantabai denied the same categorically.  Moreover, she has attributed specific roles to concerned each of the accused persons along with weapons which were   used   by   them   while   assaulting   the   victim   Maruti   Tambe, complainant and other injured persons.  Admittedly, her Vasti was situated   near   the   Vasti   of   deceased   accused   No.2   Vithoba Shendage,   and   therefore,   she   is   the   natural   witness,   and   her presence at the incident is natural and her testimony  also appears Bhangale Apeal376.91 to be probable.   There is nothing on record to establish that her testimony is biased.   Hence, PW­10 Shantabai is the star witness and   is   a   truthful   independent   eye   witness   of   the   prosecution whose   testimony   has   not   been   demolished   in   the   cross­ examination and the same deserves to be accepted and believed. Besides,   she   has   categorically   denied   the   suggestion   of   the occurrence of the incident at 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. in the cross­ examination   and   asserted   in   the   examination­in­chief   that   the incident   occurred   at   about   6.00   p.m.   in   the   evening,   and therefore, there is no substance in the argument canvassed by the learned   counsel   for   the   appellants/accused   in   respect   of   the alleged anomaly of time of occurrence of the incident.

29. PW­9 Arvind Jagtap is the son of PW­10 Shantabai Jagtap who deposed that the incident took place near his Vasti and he was giving fodder to the bullocks and his mother Shantabai was in the courtyard at the said time.   He saw all the accused coming towards   Kolekar   party   while   PW­5   Dnyanoba   and   others   were going   to   their   Vasti   and   at   that   time   there   was   attack   on   the complainant and other witnesses near his house while the sun was still in the sky.   He further deposed that he himself and PW­10 Bhangale Apeal376.91 Shantabai   also   sustained   injuries   during   the   said   attack,   and injury certificate Exh.66 supports the  injuries sustained by him. However, PW­9 Arvind did not support the case of the prosecution in respect of assault on victim Maruti Tambe and PW­5 Dnyanoba although his police statement refers to the said assault and figures at the names of the assailants, hence he was declared hostile and question   by   way   of   cross­examination   was   put   by   the   learned A.P.P.   to   him.     During   cross­examination,   the   learned   A.P.P. brought   on   record   that   since   last  two   years  i.e.   since  after   the incident   PW­9   Jagtap   was   required   to   leave   his   Vasti   and thereafter shifted to the village of his father­in­law at Bagani.  He further stated that nobody stay at Vasti at Karewadi presently.  He also   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   gave   false   evidence   at   the instance of accused No.1 Laxman and other accused.  As regards time of the incident, he stated that he does not remember whether he gave the time of injury at 9.00 p.m.

30. Thus, the testimony of PW­9 Arvind has not supported the case of the prosecution partly i.e. in respect of assault on victim Maruti  Tambe  and  PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar, and  therefore,  the learned A.P.P. put the questions in the form of cross­examination, Bhangale Apeal376.91 wherein he supported the prosecution case in respect of sustaining injury to himself and PW­10 Shantabai and accused No.8 Shivaji started chasing him and pelted stone at him which hit him on his back   and   is   shifting   from   the   Jagtap   Vasti   to   Bagani   after   the occurrence of incident.  Hence, the testimony of the said witness is required to be accepted to that extent.

31. The next injured eye witness is PW­7 Baju Kolekar who has corroborated   the   deposition   of   PW­5   Dnyanoba   and   PW­10 Shantabai in respect of starting of the incident and also regarding assault upon victim Maruti Tambe.   He categorically stated that deceased   accused   No.1   Laxman,   deceased   Rama   Kare,   accused No.2   Vithoba   and   accused   No.8   Shivaji   started   assaulting deceased Maruti Tambe and deceased accused No.1 Laxman and accused No.2 Vithoba and deceased Rama Kare used axe, while accused No.8 Shivaji used stick blows on the legs of victim Maruti Tambe.   He further stated that Maruti Tambe was assaulted in Sajguri   (Bajari) crop wherein accused No.4 Mallasha dealt with axe blow on the head of PW­7 Baju Kolekar by way of blunt side of blade of axe and thereby he fell down.   Thereafter, accused No.10 Arun Vanmane gave stick blow on his left hand and thereby Bhangale Apeal376.91 he sustained bleeding injury on head.  He further stated that the Medical Officer examined him and gave necessary treatment.   It has been brought on record in the cross­examination that he was at the distance of about 20 to 30 feet from victim Maruti Tambe when he was being assaulted but he stated that sun was still on the horizon at the said time.  The testimony of PW­7 Baju Kolekar could   not   be   demolished   in   the   cross­examination   and corroborated   by   injury   certificate   Exh.61,   and   hence,   the   said testimony deserves to be accepted.

32. Turning to the deposition of PW­8 Patlu Kolekar who is the another injured eye witness, has stated that the assailants were armed   with   sticks,   stones   and   axes   and   accused   No.7   Arjun Vanmane dealt with stick blow to him on his shin of both the feet, accused No.11 Jalinder inflicted injury to him by using stones on his  back,  while accused  No.Rama Karande  by  using stones  and other   persons   who   are   the   accused   before   the   Court,   also assaulted others from their group.   Due to the said assault, they ran away towards their Vasti.  PW­8 Patlu sustained injury to his feet and therefore he was taken to Boblad dispensary during night and thereafter was sent to Bijapur and was admitted there for 5 to Bhangale Apeal376.91 6 days.  In cross­examination, a suggestion was given to him that they reached house of Shantabai at about 8.30 or 9.00 p.m. but the   same   was   categorically   denied   by   him.     It   was   further suggested to him that, after going to Vasti of accused No.3 they started throwing stones at his Vasti, and therefore, in reply the other party also started pelting stones at them, but the same was denied by him.   His testimony has been corroborated by injury certificate Exh.59, and hence, the proposition put­forth by him in respect of assault upon him by the accused and injury sustained by him, cannot be doubted with  as his testimony has not been shaken in the cross­examination.

33. PW­11 Arjun Gopane is also an injured eye witness and he also corroborated the testimony of other prosecution witnesses in respect   of   the   details,   such   as,   time,   place   and   manner   of   the assault.     He   testified   in   respect   of   the   assault   upon   deceased Maruti   Tambe.     He   stated   that   deceased   Maruti   Tambe   was assaulted   in   Sajagure   (Bajari)   crop   by   deceased   accused   No.1 Laxman,   accused   No.2   Vithoba   and   deceased   Rama   Kare   who inflicted axe blows upon him, whereas accused No.8 Shivaji gave stick blows on the left leg of victim Maruti Tambe as well as he Bhangale Apeal376.91 himself   was   assaulted   by   Mahada   i.e.   accused   No.16,   accused No.17 Sada Chougule, accused No.14 Dnyanoba Karande, since they assaulted him by stick blows on his head, forehead, left ear and knee.   Even then he fell down they gave stick blows on his back.     His   testimony   is   also   corroborated   by   injury   certificate (Exh.62).  Nothing beneficial to the defence could be elicited from his cross­examination and his testimony has not been shattered in the cross­examination, and hence, same deserves to be accepted.

34. PW­12   Tukaram   Kolekar   is   the   next   injured   eye   witness who   stated   that   the   incident   took   place   before   sun   set   on   the second   day   of   Bendur   and   deceased   accused   No.1   and   other accused before the Court came towards them in the Vasti and they were  armed  with   axe,   sticks   and   stones   and   picked   up   quarrel since separate procession was taken out by them and they had gone for hunting separately on that day.   He further stated that while   victim   Maruti   Tambe   was   running   away,   accused   No.1 Laxman, accused No.2 Vithoba, deceased Rama and accused No.8 Shivaji assaulted victim Maruti Tambe in the field of Shantabai and accused No.8 Shivaji had a stick, whereas others used axe for the assault.  He further stated that first blow was dealt by accused Bhangale Apeal376.91 No.1 Laxman on victim’s head and deceased Rama Kare also gave axe blow and others followed and accused No.3 Revappa caught him   near   Vasti   and   assaulted   him   by   stick.     He   was   taken   to dispensary after the midnight and was examined at Boblad and thereafter   was shifted  to  Bijapur.    His  testimony  also  has  been supported by injury certificate Exh.60 and he has sustained the injury stated therein.   Some suggestions were put to him in the cross­examination in the form of case of the defence but the same were denied by him.  A specific suggestion was put to him that the incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., but the same was   also   categorically   denied   by   him.     He   also   denied   that   he sustained injury on account of stone pelting and denied that due to darkness he could not see anything.   Accordingly, he himself was injured during the occurrence of incident and witnessed the attack at the hands of the accused upon victim Maruti Tambe and other injured persons.  His testimony also has not been shaken in the cross­examination and the same deserves to be accepted.

35. That   takes   us   to   the   next   testimony   of   PW­13   Sayappa Kolekar who corroborated with the witnesses in respect of time, place and manner of the assault by the accused on their group. He Bhangale Apeal376.91 testified that accused No.17 Sada Chougule gave stick blow on his head, whereas accused No.27 Vasant Karande gave stick blow on his right leg, whereas accused No.16 Mahada Chougule hit him with   the   stick   and   thereby   he   sustained   injury   on   his   head, forehead, hands and legs and was fallen down.  After some time, he got up and went to Vasti.  He confined his testimony to assault upon him and apparently has not exaggerated the occurrence of incident.     His   testimony   is   also   supported   by   injury   certificate Exh.64.

36. Coming   to   the   deposition   of   PW­6   Dr.Chandrashekhar Balamatti,   who   stated   that   he   was   attached   to   Primary   Health Centre at Kontyal Boblad at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1988 and on 1st  July, 1988  he examined injured PW­8 Patlu Kolekar and found the following injuries :­

1. Contusion over right parietal region, 3 cm x 2 cm read in colour.

2.  A bruise over right insar­scapular region, oblique, 10 cm x 2 cm.

3.  A bruise over left deltiod region posterior, 4 cm x 2 cm read in colour.

4.  A bruise over right knee joint (just above it) 3 cm x 2 cm read in colour. Bhangale Apeal376.91

5.  C.L.W. over mid shin, 2 cm x ½ cm bone­deep, bleeding present.

6.  Abrasion over right shin, medially 3 cm x 1 cm, bleeding present, middle third.” He   also   stated   that   the   said   injuries   were   caused   by   hard   and blunt object within six hours of the examination.  He also issued injury certificate Exh.69  in respect of  said injuries sustained  by PW­8 Patlu Kolekar.

37. He   also   stated   that   he   examined   PW­7   Baju   Kolekar   and found following injuries on his person :­ “1.  Curved like C.L.W. over left frontal region, scalp deep, bleeding present, 1 cm.

2.   CLW over left parietal region, 1 x  ¼ cm. Skin deep, bleeding present.

3.  CLW over right parietal region 2 cm x 4 cm. Skin deep and muscle deep, bleeding plus.

4.     Swelling   left   shoulder,   movements   restricted,   red colour.

5.  Fullness of left lower part of buttock. He further stated that the said injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance within six hours and issued injury certificate to that effect (Exh.61).  He also stated that x­ray was taken out and fracture was found on 8th rib on left side of the said injury and the Bhangale Apeal376.91 said   x/ray   is   marked   as   Exh.68.     He   further   stated   that   he examined PW­12 Tukaram Kolekar, PW­11 Arjun Gopane, PW­13 Sayappa Kolekar, PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar, Arjun Kolekar, PW­9 Arvind Jagtap and Maruti Kolekar and issued injury certificates at Exhibit   Nos.60,   62   to   67.     He   also   stated   that   the   injuries sustained by all the injured within six hours except injury No.1 sustained   by   PW­5   Dnyanoba   are   caused   by   hard   and   blunt substance.

38. The   said   doctor   also   examined   victim   Maruti   Tambe   at about   11.45   p.m.   on   30th  June,   1988   and   found   the   following injuries on his person :­

1.     Incised   wound,   right   frontal   region,   5   x   ½   cm.   Skin deep, bleeding plus.

2.   Incised wound over posterior part of head, 15 cm x  ½ cm  scalp deep, bleeding present.

3.  CLW over tip of nose, bleeding present.

4.   Incised wound over left parietal region, 4 cm x  ½ cm skin deep, bleeding present.

5.  Incised wound over back of left ear, 4 cm x ¼ cm. Skin deep, bleeding plus.

6.  Compound fracture of left tibia, upper 1/3 bone is being seen in the wound, 5 cm x 3 cm bleeding present. Bhangale Apeal376.91

7.  CLW over middle of left shin, 8 x 1 ½ cms. Bone deep, bleeding present.

8.  Incised wound over lower 1/3rd of left tibia, 3 x ¼ cm. Skin deep, bleeding present. He further stated that the patient was referred to Civil Hospital, Vijapur, because his condition was serious and produced the OPD papers.   He further stated that patient’s right eye was examined and pupil was dialated and was not reacting to light.  Accordingly he   opined   that   injury   Nos.1,   2   and   4   were   individually   and collectively are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  As regards injury Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 sustained by victim Maruti Tambe, he has stated that said injuries can be caused by an axe, whereas he has stated that rest of the injuries can be caused by hard and blunt substance like sticks.

39. During   cross­examination,   he   has   stated   that,   when   he recorded   history   of   all   the   patients,   they   gave   time   of   alleged assault of 9.00 p.m.  He further stated that victim Maruti has also given the said time of alleged assault.  He has further opined that it is not necessary that in all the cases when the blows are dealt by sticks on the part of body like back, there would invariably be a weal   mark   at  the   site   of   the   injury.     He   further   opined   that  if Bhangale Apeal376.91 injury is caused on the head by using a stick, then sometimes such injury looks like incised wound as well as bruises can be caused if a stone is pelted at the injured, and also CLW or contusions can be caused by a stone, however, further stated that such injuries may be caused if person falls on a stone.

40. Accordingly,   the   testimony   of   PW­6   Dr.Chandrashekhar Balamatti   and   the   respective   injury   certificates   issued   by   him, support the case of the prosecution in respect of injuries sustained by the victim Maruti Tambe and other injured persons.  No doubt, it   is   brought   in   his   cross­examination   that   while   recording   the history   of   the   patients   i.e.   aforesaid   injured,   they   gave   time   of alleged assault at 9.00 p.m. including victim Maruti Tambe, but the   testimonies   of   other   injured   eye   witnesses   and   more particularly, of an independent eye witness PW­10 Shantabai are specific and crystal clear about the time of the occurrence of the incident as 6 o’clock in the evening when sun was on the horizon, and   hence,   in   comparison   with   the   testimonies   of   injured   eye witnesses, the testimony of PW­6 Dr.Chandrashekhar Balamatti in respect of time of the incident, takes back foot.

41.  Apart   from   the   aforesaid   direct   evidence   of   eye   witness Bhangale Apeal376.91 account   and   medical   evidence   of   Dr.Balamatti   PW­6,   the prosecution has produced the panchanama of scene of offence at Exh.38   through   PW­8   Patlu   Kolekar   and   panchanama   of   house search   through   PW­2   Dhondiba   Tambe   and   also   recovery panchanama  through PW­3 Tukaram Shinde at Exh.Nos.48 to 52. The panchanama of the scene of offence Exh.38 corroborates with the eye witness account which discloses that the space near the house of PW­10 Shantabai Jagtap was disturbed and there were foot­prints in the said area, as well as there were blood spots at two places and also muffler of PW­5 and chappal pair of victim Maruti   Tambe   were   found   there,   and   the   aspects   are   in consonance with the case of the prosecution that PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar and victim Maruti Tambe were assaulted at the said place. Moreover,   the   map   of   the   scene   of   place   of   occurrence   of   the incident is produced by PW­4 Sandeep Waghmare, Circle Officer, at Exh.54 which also strengthens the said position.

42. We   have   perused   and   scrutinized   the   aforesaid   material evidence and consisting of the ocular, documentary and medical evidence   and   also   considered   the   submissions   advanced   by learned counsel for the  respective  parties.     Insofar  as the main Bhangale Apeal376.91 attack of the learned counsel for the appellants/accused in respect of the time of the occurrence of the incident is concerned, which according to him is 9.00 p.m. on 30th June, 1988 relying upon the very   testimony   of   PW­6   Dr.Balamatti   who   stated   that   while recording the history, the injured persons gave him timing of the occurrence of  the  alleged  assault  at 9.00  p.m. and also relying upon the OPD papers (Exh.69),  discloses the alleged assault of 30th  June,   1988   at   9.00   p.m.   and   station   diary   entry   No.23   at

22.35, whereby PSI Kumbhar and HC Vibhute informed on phone about the occurrence of incident and also station diary entry at

22.45   on   30th  June,   1988   in   respect   of   proceeding   the   police personnel towards the said place of incident in pursuance of the said   information,   it   is   significant   to   note   that   both   the   station diary entries at Sr. Nos.23 and 24 at 22.35 hours and 22.45 hours respectively on 30th  June, 1988 do not disclose the time of the occurrence   of   the   incident   and   the   said   timings   are   given   in respect of making the station diary entries and pertinently even the station diary Entry No.21 (Exh.74) which was made on the complaint   of   accused   No.3   Revappa   reflects   the   time   of   20.30 hours, and therefore, the time of occurrence of the incident put­ forth by learned advocate for the appellants/accused as 9.00 p.m. Bhangale Apeal376.91 is in doldrums.  Moreover, the station diary entry Exh.73 made in respect of lodgment of F.I.R. made on 1st July, 1988 categorically discloses the date and time of offence as 30th June, 1988 at 18.00 hours to 19.00 hours.   Besides, the aforesaid eye witnesses and PW­5   Dnyanoba   Kolekar,   PW­9   Arvind   Jagtap   and   more particularly PW­10 Shantabai Jagtap, an independent eye witness and PW­11 Arjun Gopane, PW­12 Tukaram Kolekar as well as PW­ 13   Sayappa   Kolekar,   referred   to   the   time   of   the   occurrence   of incident at 6.00 p.m. before sunset when sun was on the horizon, and hence, the time of occurrence of incident given by the said eye   witnesses   carries   more   weightage,   and   therefore,   the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants bears no substance.

43. As   regards   the   next   submission   advanced   by   learned counsel   for   the   appellants   that   the   prosecution   has   examined highly partisan and  interested eye witnesses and their testimonies cannot be relied upon, no doubt PW­7 Baju Kolekar, PW­8 Patlu Kolekar,   PW­12   Tukaram   Kolekar   and   PW­13   Sayappa   Kolekar belong to the same community of PW­5 Dnyanoba Kolekar, but their   testimonies   reveal   that   they   have   not   exaggerated   the Bhangale Apeal376.91 occurrence of the incident and confined their testimonies to the occurrence   of   the   incident,   and   hence,   although   the   said testimonies   belong   to   same   community,   the   said   testimonies cannot be discarded on the said count considering the totality and evidentiary   value   thereof.     Moreover,   PW­9   Arvind   Jagtap   has partly supported the case of the prosecution, and therefore, the learned   A.P.P.   put   the   questions   to   him   in   the   form   of   cross­ examination but he has denied the time of occurrence of incident at 9.00 p.m. on 30th June, 1988.  Moreover, PW­10 is the totally independent injured eye witness who has supported the case of the prosecution who witnessed the occurrence of incident and her testimony   has   not   been   shaken   in   the   cross­examination,   and therefore,  the said testimony connect the appellants to the crime, clinchingly.

44. As   regards   the   other   argument   canvassed   by   learned counsel for the appellants that some material documents, namely, (i) OPD papers, (ii) examination and certificates issued by doctors attending to the witnesses at District Hospital,and (iii) statements of   police   officers   on   duty   when   all   injured   were   admitted   and medico   legal   register   entry   maintained   at   the   District   Hospital, Bhangale Apeal376.91 were   not   produced   by   the   prosecution   and   some   important witnesses, namely, PHC Kumbhar and Subarao Jagtap, were not examined by the  prosecution, there cannot be any dispute  that quality   of   the   evidence   matters   and   not   the   quantity,   and therefore,   the   qualitative   evidence   adduced/produced   by   the prosecution is sufficient to connect the appellants to the crime, and   therefore,   non­examination   of   some   witnesses   and   non­ production   of   some   evidence   will   not   hamper   the   case   of   the prosecution,   and   therefore,   the   said   submission   of   the   learned counsel for the appellants bears no substance.

45. In   the   circumstances,   the   direct   evidence   of   eye   witness account and the other circumstantial evidence as discussed herein above, establishes the guilt of the accused/appellants.  Moreover, it also appears that the learned Trial Judge has scrutinized and analyzed   the   evidence   in   proper   perspective   and   there   is   no glaring mistake therein, and therefore, interference therein so far as   convictions   of   the   appellants   are   concerned,   except   accused No.2 Vithoba and accused No.8 Shivaji, is not warranted.

46. Insofar as accused No.2 Vithoba and accused No.8 Shivaji Bhangale Apeal376.91 are concerned, it is material to note that PW­10 – Shantabai – an independent   eye   witness   has   stated   that   she   saw   that   victim Maruti  Tambe  was assaulted by accused No.2 Vithoba,  accused No.8 Shivaji and Rama and they used axes and sticks and she saw the said incident from the distance of about 20, 15 and 30 feet at different places  and where  other  persons were being assaulted. Hence, it is amply clear that she has not attributed any specific role to accused No.2 Vithoba and accused No.8 Shivaji during the occurrence of the incident and even there is no whisper in her testimony regarding specific weapon used by accused No.2 and accused   No.8,   respectively,   and   also   her   testimony   is   silent   in respect of the part of the body of victim Maruti Tambe on which the   said   assailants   attacked   and   even   she   witnessed   the occurrence of evidence from the different distances of 20, 15 and 30 feet from her Vasti at different places, and therefore, we are of the   considered   view   that   the   convictions   against   accused   No.2 Vithoba   and   accused   No.8   Shivaji   for   the   offence   punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. shall not sustain, but the prosecution has made out the case against both the said accused which shall come under the purview of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. Bhangale Apeal376.91

47. Having taken the comprehensive view of the matter, we are of   the   considered   opinion   that   the   convictions   imposed   upon accused   No.2   Vithoba   and   accused   No.8   Shivaji,   deserve   to   be altered from the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. to an   offence   punishable   under   Section   304   (Part   II)   of   I.P.C.   As regards the sentences against accused Nos.2 and 8, admittedly, the incident occurred on 30th June, 1988 at about almost 24 years time   has   been   elapsed   therefrom,   and   hence,   considering   the passage of the said time and further considering the position that the   appellants   have   not   committed   any   offence   thereafter   as canvassed   by   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants/accused,   since accused   No.2   Vithoba   and   accused   No.8   Shivaji   are   being convicted  under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C., the sentence of three years each and fine of Rs.1000/­ each, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month, shall meet the ends of justice. However,   their   other   convictions   and   sentences   under   other respective   offences   shall   remain   the   same.     Insofar   as   accused No.10   Arun   Vanmane,   accused   No.11   Jalinder   Vanmane   and accused   No.27   Vasant   Karande   are   concerned,   as   submitted   by learned counsel for the appellants, they were of tender ages i.e. 22, 19 and 20 years respectively at the time of occurrence of the Bhangale Apeal376.91 incident   and   it   was   their   first   offence   wherein   they   are   found guilty and having regard to the circumstances of the case, their respective   roles   in   the   occurrence   of   incident   and   further considering   the   submission   made   by   learned   counsel   for   the appellants in respect of peace and harmony in the village, it is expedient to release them on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them  at once for  punishment  as an exception  while maintaining convictions against them taking broader perspective and with a view to maintain the prevailing peace and tranquility in the village, but making it clear that this shall not be construed as precedent, and therefore, they are required to be released on their   entering   into   bond   with   sureties   under   the   Probation   of Offenders Act, 1958, as mentioned below.

48. As regards accused  No.4 Mallasha Shendge, his conviction under   Section   307   of   I.P.C.   deserves   to   be   confirmed,   but considering the passage of time and non­committal of any offence from the present offence, requires that he be sentenced to suffer R.I.  for   three years and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1000/­, in  default  to suffer R.I. for one month.  However, his convictions and sentences under other respective offences shall remain same. And also the Bhangale Apeal376.91 convictions and sentences of the rest of the accused deserve to be confirmed and maintained.

49. Hence, we pass the following order :­ (1) The appeal is partly allowed. (2) The convictions and sentences imposed upon accused No.2 Vithoba Shendge and accused No.8 Shivaji Vanmane for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. stands altered and they stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of I.P.C. and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/­ each, in default to suffer further R.I.   for   one   month.     However,   their   other   convictions   and sentences   under   other   respective   offences   stand   confirmed   and maintained. (3) The   conviction   imposed   against   accused   No.4 Mallasha Shendge for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. stands confirmed but his sentence stands modified from R.I. for four   years   to R.I. for three years and directed to pay  fine  of Rs.1000/­,   in   default   to   suffer   further   R.I.   for   one   month. However,   his   other   respective   convictions   and   sentences   stand confirmed and maintained. Bhangale Apeal376.91 (4) The   convictions   imposed   upon   accused   No.10   Arun Vanmane, accused No.11 Jalinder  Vanmane and accused No.27 Vasant   Karande,   stand   confirmed   and   maintained.   However, considering   their   tender   ages   at   the   time   of   commission   of offence,   and   for   the   reasons   mentioned   herein   above,   they   are directed to be released on entering their bond of Rs.10,000/­ each for good conduct before the concerned learned Magistrate with one surety in the like amount for the period of one year under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, within the period of four weeks. (5) Moreover,   rest   of   the   convictions   and   sentences against other accused and also the  other directions recorded in the impugned judgment and order dated 1st June, 1991 including the substantive sentences against the accused to run concurrently and   set   off   under   Section   428   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure granted   to   the   accused   and   the   destruction   of   the   Muddemal property stand confirmed and maintained, except regarding the deceased   accused   No.1   Laxman   Sidha   Vanmane,   accused   No.7 Arun   Sidha   Vanmane   and   accused   No.16   –   Mahada   Chougule, who have expired during the pendency of  appeal and since their appeals have been abated. Bhangale Apeal376.91 (6) The aforesaid accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 8, 14, 15 and 17  are on bail and their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within the period of two weeks and thereafter the learned Trial Court shall send them to jail to undergo the sentences as mentioned herein above.  If the above   referred   accused   do   not   surrender   within   the   aforesaid prescribed   time   limit,   the   learned   Trial   Court   shall   issue   arrest warrant/s against them to comply with the above directions. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ( B.R.GAVAI, J. ) Bhangale Apeal376.91 Bhangale