1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANTABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2429 OF 2009 with Application No.422/2009, in Application No. 252/2009 with Appln No.2425/2009 Bharat s/o Kisan Palve. ..Applicant. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra. ...Respondent. Shri V.M. Chate, Advocate for the applicant. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Heard the counsel extensively. Application of the complainant through his Advocate to assist the A.P.P. is allowed. 2- Family controversies over agricultural properties, resulted in homicidal death of Balasaheb Ganpat Bhavar, by his relations, as indicated in the First Information Report lodged by his son on 21.12.2008. In the First Information Report names of present applicant- accused are shown. At page No.2 and even in the last two lines there is reference to the brothers of Rana Pratap (thereby indicating present applicant Bharat and Janataram, they being brothers of said Rana) to be possessing iron rod which was one of the instrument in assaulting the deceased. I quite see, one of the eye witness Bandu, the uncle of the complainant did not name the applicant in his 2 statement under section 164 (5) of Code of Criminal Procedure or the witness Baban Sayyed has also not indicted the applicant. The role of Baban Sayyed apparently is limited. He could not have witnessed entire incident as can be seen from the nature of statement. The incident has taken place in a sudden moment where 15-16 persons were assaulting the deceased. In this situation, it may be that Bandu Ganpat Bhawar skipped the name of the accused persons, that does not mean the accused were not present at the place or did not participate in assault giving rise to an offence u/s 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4/25 of Arms Act and 37 (1) (3) 135 of B.P. Act. 3- The record indicates that application No.1472/2009 moved by Sambhaji Kisanrao Palve, is rejected by this Court on 30 th of June, 2009 and a direction for expeditious hearing is given. 4- Considering all the aspects, I do not find any merits in both the applications. They are rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ) **** aaa/2429.09