Cr.Appeal/266/1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 266 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant VERSUS 1. Bhatu Ambar Patil, age 27 years, 2. Pandit Rajaram Patil, age 45 years, 3.Ambar Dhaku Patil, age 55 years, 4.Sahebrao Rajaram Patil, age 35 years All r/o Pimparkhede, Tq. and Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents ... Shri N.B.Patil, APP for the appellant and Smt. R.D.Mane, Advocate for respondents - Absent. ... CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Dated : September 8, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.H.Joshi,J.) :- 1. This is a State Appeal against acquittal. 2. The accused were charged for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for brevity), for assaulting Cr.Appeal/266/1996 2 Vinayak Varu Patil, by use of an axe and causing his death. It is alleged that accused No.1 - Bhatu Ambar Patil assaulted by an axe while other accused persons assaulted by fist blows and had a common intention. 3. The prosecution has relied upon PW 1 - Dattu Varu Patil - brother of deceased, as a main witness, while PW 2 Malsing Bhavsing Ahire and PW 4 Jagannath Uttam Patil are also cited as eye witnesses. 4. Heard learned APP or the State. None present for the respondents. Perused the record. 5. Perusal of testimonies of witnesses reveals that :- (1) There exists a political rivalry. (2) All three witnesses are concurrent on the point and deposed in one line and sentence, that accused No.1 has assaulted the victim by use of an axe from the sharp side and caused grievous hurt to head, resulting into his death. (3) PW 2 Malsing Bhavsing Ahire admits that the quarrel was intervened by Dattu Varu. Cr.Appeal/266/1996 3 (4) PW 4 Jagannath Uttam Patil states that the quarrel was intervened by Nathu Fula, Popat Rajaram, Jagannath Vishram and Tana Ukha Thakare. (5) None amongst these persons, who have intervened, as told by these witnesses, have been examined. 6. The manner in which the involvement of accused is shown, as described in a single line and a single sentence, and this cryptic narration creates a suspicion as to the genuineness on account of such succinct preciseness particularly in the background that three independent witnesses which were available are not examined. 7. It is further seen that perusal of testimonies of these witnesses reveal that the manner or reason as to why and in what circumstances the accused persons had arrived at the scene of offence and how the quarrel began, is withheld from the Court. In the result, the genesis of the offence is suppressed. 8. The learned Judge was thus right in acquitting the accused persons. Cr.Appeal/266/1996 4 9. We find no reason to take a different view of the matter. The appeal against acquittal does not deserve any interference and is dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI, J.) ... akl