1 criapl-271.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2011 (AURANGABAD) (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 881 OF 1987) (BOMBAY) The State of Maharashtra ... complainant versus 1. Tulshiram Bhau Kopanar age 30 years, 2. Ankush Bhiva Pingale, age 25 years, 3. Balu Bhiva Pingle, age 20 years, 4. Narayan Baliba Rupnar, age 30 years, 5. Sattu Mahadu Pingale, age 30 years, 6. Baliba Vithoba Rupnar, age 55 years, 7. Vilas Anna Kopnar, age 22 years, 8. Shiva Bhau Pingale, age 30 years, 9. Dhondiba Savla Kopanar, age 22 years, 10. Devidas Appa Kopanar, age 30 years, 11. Adinath Mahadu Pingale, age 22 years, 12. Lala Appa Kopanar, age 20 years, 13. Bapu Baliba Kopanar, age 25 years, 2 criapl-271.11 14. Mahadu Biru Pingale, age 45 years, All agriculturists, r/of Rakshaswad Kd. Tq. Karjat,District Ahmednagar. Respondents (Appeal abated as per court's order dated 4.8.2011 against Respondent No.6.) ------- Smt. S.D. Shelke, Asstt. Public Prosecutor, for the appellant. Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate, for Resp. Nos. 2,3,5, and 8 to 14. Coram: A. H. Joshi and A. R. Joshi, JJ. Date : 25th August 2011. Judgment : ( Per: A.H. Joshi, J. ) 01. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30.6.1987 in Sessions Case No. No.165 of 1986, delivered by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. 02. The accused persons were tried for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 34, and 323 read with Section 34, Section 337 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code etc. The case resulted into acquittal. Hence, this State Appeal. 03. The prosecution case, in brief, was that riotous mob, comprising of accused persons, had hit the injured witnesses and the deceased Bapu, by assaulting him with stones. 3 criapl-271.11 04. The post mortem examination (Exh. 46) discloses the cause of death to be trauma due to head injury. The prosecution has relied on the testimonies of PW-1 Rupchand Vithal Sudrik, PW-2 Raosaheb Janu Mhaske, PW-3 Rajaram Janu Mhaske and PW-4 Balu Vithal Sudrik. 05. It seen from the record that the incident occurred when the procession of palanquin of Rakshadevi was taking place and riotous mob tried to pull the palanquin in opposite direction. There was free stone pelting. 06. On one hand, the prosecution witnesses have claimed that accused Nos. 4 to 16 had opposed the movement of palanquin in a particular direction, and accused Nos. 8 and 14 instigated them to start assault. It is then alleged that accused No.9 took up stone and hit the same to PW-3 Rajaram, while accused Nos. 4 and 5 also hit stones on the deceased, and accused Nos. 4 to 13 assaulted the complainant. 07. It is seen from the cross examination of the witnesses that they admitted that although there was free pelting of stones, they either did not attempt to evade the hurt due to stones so pelted, or to run away from the spot. 08. Considering the totality of circumstances, learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the testimonies of the material witnesses, are full of contradictions and hence, unworthy of reliance. 09. We have perused the testimonies of the eye witnesses and we find ourselves in concurrence with the view taken by learned Sessions Judge, particularly in the background that when the mob of more than 50 persons had 4 criapl-271.11 gathered and the situation of turmoil prevailed for about 10-15 minutes, it was impossible for the witnesses to identify as to who were the exact persons amongst the mob of 50 persons, as to exactly who pelted stones etc. Witnesses also admitted that all the participants could not be identified. 10. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to pint pointedly identify as to who were the accused persons who had caused a particular act. It thus turns out to be a case where accused persons were not identified by the witnesses. It emerges to be a case of eruption of the incident at the spur of moment and, therefore, it would be impossible to attribute pre-determined act by the accused persons, in the absence of proof of common object. 11. In the result, we are satisfied that the appeal has no merits. 12. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/criapl-271.11