1 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.458 OF 1990 1. Dharma Zipru Lad, Age : 35 yrs. ] 2. Madhukar Zipru Lad, Age : 20 yrs. ] 3. Keshav Janardan Dharve, Age : 35 yrs. ] 4. Anant Laxman Shinde, Age : 45 yrs. ] 5. Narendra Chintaman Shinde, Age : 28 yrs. ] 6. Dharma Sakharam Chakor, Age: 20 yrs. ] Appellants 7. Gajanan Chintaman Shinde, Age: 19 yrs. ] (Ori. Accused 8. Surendra Chintaman Shinde, Age : 22 yrs. ] nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9, 9. Tukaram Laxman Shinde, Age : 55 yrs. ] 13, 15 to 18, 20, 10. Pandu Parshu Shinde, Age : 55 yrs. ] 21 and 23.) 11. Chindaman Laxman Shinde, Age :55 yrs. ] 12. Sitaram Hari More, Age : 55 yrs. ] 13. Sakharam Mahadu Chakor, Age : 55 yrs. ] 14. Zipru Govind Lad, Age : 60 yrs. ] 15. Dhondu Nagu Lad, Age : 55 yrs. ] All r/o : Atkargaon, Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, Advocate for appellants. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State-respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st September, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants have filed this appeal, challenging their conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 436, 336, 337, 2 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Court, Raigad, at Alibag by its judgment and order dated 16th June 1990. Appellants No. 1 and 2 have been punished with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Appellants no. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have been sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.300/-each. In default of payment of fine, they are to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Appellants no.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have been released on their executing bond of good behaviour for the amount of Rs.1,000/- each for a period of one year with surety in the like amount. 2. The facts of the prosecution case stated in brief are as follows : The appellants, 12 other co-accused (who have been acquitted), the complainant and the prosecution witnesses belong to village Atkargaon, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad. They were on cross-terms with each other for about a year over the incident of the wife of the complainant s nephew ’ being molested by appellant no.2. Since that incident, several quarrels had taken place between the two groups and complaints, counter-complaints and chapter cases filed. The complainant Shankar Tukaram Patil owns a grocery shop and a flour mill situate behind the grocery shop in the village. 3 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 On 22nd May 1986 at about 5.00 pm., his daughter, Pragati (PW-2, then aged 8 years) was sitting in the shop to look after it and the complainant (PW-1) was in the flour mill grinding the grains. Within a short time, Pragati came running to the complainant and told him that the accused persons had gathered in front of the shop and were threatened to set her and the shop on fire with kerosene. Complainant then ran to the shop and saw that it had caught fire. He started shouting loudly. Hearing him, his father and other family members rushed to the shop and when they tried to extinguish the fire, the appellants and others obstructed them by pelting stones. Some of the accused persons were armed with bamboo sticks, iron bars and one of them with a sword. Because of pelting the stones, some of the prosecution witnesses got injured. After some time, fire brigade came and extinguished the fire. However, by then the shop was completely gutted in the fire, causing loss to him of Rs.86,000/-. 3. During the course of investigation, the Police apart from recording the statements of witnesses, recovered a sword, 3 bamboo sticks and 2 iron bars, at the instance of some of the appellants. They arrested the appellants and 12 other persons. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their defence was that the fire was caused by short-circuit in the flour mill and that they had been falsely involved into the case because of the enmity. The prosecution 4 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 evidence in the trial was of the complainant, PW-1, his daughter PW-2, three independent witnesses i.e. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, panch witness and the Investigating Officer. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, accepted the same as he found that the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is cogent, consistent and convincing to convict the appellants. All the witnesses have corroborated each other in the material particulars though there are some contradictions on record. As regards the other 12 accused, he found there was no iota of evidence against them on record. He opined that they were probably mere onlookers, who had collected at the site because of commotion over fire and acquitted them. 4. Mr. Gavnekar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the main witnesses of the prosecution i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 and there are also omissions over the material facts. According to him, this aspect has been glossed over by the Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. 5. The complainant deposed that on 22nd May 1986, at about 5.00 pm., he was in the flour mill grinding grain and his daughter was in the shop, appellant no.2 came there and threw cotton bundles dipped in kerosene in the shop. Appellants no. 1, 4 and 9 who were accompanying him also tried to set the shop on fire, appellants nos. 5 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 5, 7, 8 and several other persons were present there armed with knife, sticks etc. This was told to him by his daughter- PW-2. She further told him that they had threatened her that if she shouted then they would throw her also into the fire. The complainant then rushed his daughter to the house and returned with his father and other family members to extinguish the fire, but all the accused persons started pelting stones at then and prevented them from forwarding. Because of pelting of stones, prosecution witnesses Walku Hari Patil, Laxman Hari Patil, Ramdas Narayan Patil, Dattatraya Narayan Patil and Tukaram Rambhau Patil sustained injuries. Then the fire brigade came and extinguished the fire. The complainant also stated that when his father tried to intervene, appellant no.1, gave a blow with a sword on his right palm causing a bleeding injury. 6. PW-2, daughter deposed that on the date of the incident at about 4.30 pm, when she was sitting in the shop and her father was in the flour mill, the appellants no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 came to the shop. They had brought kerosene tins with them and cotton gags dipped in the kerosene. They were armed with knives and swords with them, they poured kerosene on the floor of the shop. Appellant no.9 applied match stick to it. They also threw cotton gags in the cupboard. 6 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 There were two other persons accompanying them. The accused threatened her that she should not shout, otherwise they would throw her also into the fire. Therefore, she ran to her father in the flour mill and told him about the incident. Then her father rushed to the shop, when the accused persons threatened them with knife. Therefore, both got scared and ran away by the rear door. 7. The complainant has not deposed about pouring of kerosene on the shop floor and setting the same on fire. He has referred to only the cotton gags dipped into the kerosene being used for the purpose. However, the evidence of these two witnesses is seen to be consistent with all the other material particulars and hence on this ground alone, neither the evidence of the complainant nor the evidence of his daughter can be discarded. Particularly when it is seen that the evidence of these two witnesses is supported by three other indepdendent witnesses, who are Sambhaji Parshuram Patil - PW-3, Anant Rambhau Kumbhar- PW-4 and Sunita Dhondu Kumbhar- PW-5. PW-3 stated that he had seen the appellants no. 1, 2, 4 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 going to the shop of the complainant armed with swords and iron bars. He had asked appellant no.11 to return back, but he did not pay any heed and they set the shop of the complainant on fire. P.W. 4 deposed that on the date and time of the incident, he saw 7 Cri.Appeal 458/1990 Appellants no. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 and other accused going to the shop of the complainant. Accused no.2 was carrying kerosene tin. Appellant no.1 kept gunny bag balls dipped in kerosene in the shop. Appellant no.2 poured kerosene on the floor of the shop and set the shop on fire. Then all the accused went to the house of appellant no.2. From there they started pelting stones and prevented anybody from going to the shop. They were armed with swords and daggers. In the incident, the father of the complainant was assaulted and sustained injury. PW. 5 had seen appellant no. 2 setting fire to the shop and all accused pelting stones. The evidence of these three witnesses has sustained extensive cross-examination. The oral evidence of the eye- witnesses is supported by the evidence recovery of weapons i.e. sword, iron bars and bamboo sticks. 8. The above evidence completely establishes complicity of the appellants in the offence. The learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the entire evidence to convict the appellants and passed appropriate sentences against them. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)