-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2002 The State of Maharashtra : Appellant (Orig.Complainant) V/s. 1. Vijay Doraswami Pille, Age: 28 yrs., Occ.: Nil. 2. Raju Mallappa Bajalv, Age: 21 yrs., Occ.: Labourer Both R/a. Shankarwadi, Kasarwadi, Pune, Dist. Pune. 3. Mantesh Sangappa Bajantri, Age : 23 yrs., Occ.: Mesion, R/a. Andheri, Tanta Colony, Mumbai and Mandwel, Tal. Javhargi, Dist. Gulbarga, Karnataka State. : Respondents (Orig.Accused 1 to 3) ... Mrs.A.S.Pai, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the appellant. Mr.Prakash Naik for respondent no.2. -: 2 :- ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATE : JANUARY 08, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against acquittal of accused persons in Sessions Case no.456/98 by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. 2. The case of the prosecution was that P.W.1 and his brother Ravi used to run a fabrication workshop at Kasarwadi, Pune. One Shekhar who is a distant relative of the complainant used to reside with the complainant and his other family members at Thergaon, Chinchwad. On account of the intervention of Shekhar, there used to be quarrel in the family and, therefore, on 31.7.1998 the complainant asked Shekhar to come to his workshop at Kasarwadi. Shekhar went to the workshop of the complainant. The complainant asked Shekhar to leave his house, but Shekhar refused to leave the house and started quarrelling with the complainant. Thereafter, Shekhar lodged a report with the police alleging that the complaint beat him. The police came to his workshop in order to make inquiry on the report of Shekhar. On the same day i.e. on 31.7.1998 the complainant went to his house and narrated the aforesaid incident to his brother Ravi. He asked his brother Ravi to go to the police -: 3 :- station to know about the exact allegations made by Shekhar against him. The complainant at 9 a.m. on 1.8.1998 went to his workshop. His brother Ravi, the deceased, came to the workshop at about 1.00 p.m. While the complainant was talking to his brother, he noticed the accused persons and three more persons standing on the road at a distance of 20 ft. from his workshop. The complainant told his brother Ravi that the said persons were waiting on the road. The brother of the complainant asked the complainant not to bother about it. Thereafter, Ravi left the workshop at about 2.00 p.m. According to the complainant, the hut of the accused no.2 was at a distance of 15 to 20 ft. from his workshop. The said house was touching on the road. As soon as the complainant’s brother Ravi left the workshop, the complainant heard the commotion near the hut of the accused no.2. On hearing the commotion, he went near the house of the accused no.2. When he reached there, he heard the "commotion" coming from inside the house. He tried to enter the house of the accused no.2. At that time, the accused no.2 came in front of his house and asked the complainant not to interfere in the quarrel being a family dispute. According to the complainant, the accused no.2 was armed with a sword. He pushed the accused no.2 inside the house and entered the house of Raju Bajalo. The complainant noticed there that his -: 4 :- brother Ravi was caught hold of by the accused no.3. He was armed with a sword and the accused no.3 had put the sword on the neck of his brother Ravi. He also noticed one Shekhar Pille, Naresh Gurkha and Bhimsa Bajalo in the house of the accused no.2. According to the complainant, all these persons were also armed with sword and a weapon like sickle. The complainant asked his brother Ravi to leave the place. His brother asked the complainant not to leave the house. After some time, his brother Ravi escaped from the place, but he saw the accused persons chasing him and beating his brother Ravi with a sword and a weapon like sickle which has resulted in his death. 3. On the basis of these allegations, charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses and exhibited several documents. The prosecution was based on the oral testimony of P.W.1 supported by the discovery of the weapon used in the offence on the basis of the alleged disclosure of the accused persons. P.W.1 supported the prosecution story, but the recovery of the sickle and swords on the basis of the alleged disclosure made by the accused persons was not proved. There was, however, medical evidence that the deceased had received 36 injuries which could have been -: 5 :- caused by weapons like sickle and swords. The only evidence against the accused was the testimony of P.W.1, but without any corroborative evidence. P.W.1 was the brother of the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court felt that it could not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1. He noticed the reasons in paragraph 17 at page 146 of the paper-book which read thus:- "17. The evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence because the conduct of this P.W.1 appears to be very unnatural. According to him, though he saw in all six persons in the house of accused No.2 and inspite of that he did not start shouting for help. Admittedly, the incident alleged to have been taken place at about 2 p.m. Admittedly, the work-shop of the complainant is just situated at a distance of 15 to 20 ft. from the house of accused No.2. Admittedly, two servants were working in the work-shop. Similarly, the house of accused No.2 is surrounded by many chawls. In such situation, it is expected from the complainant to make certain efforts to escape his brother from the -: 6 :- cultches (sic) of the accused persons. He has clearly admitted that neither he made any attempt to make a hue and cry nor he made any attempt to take the help of neighbours or his own workers in relieving his brothers from the clutches of the accused persons. This conduct of the complainant is not natural." Since the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a plausible view on the basis of evidence that has been led by the prosecution, we do not think that acquittal in this case can be changed into a conviction. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (S.A. BOBDE, J.)