1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No.284/2011 ( Dnyaneshwar s/o Babanrao Nimkar ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S. Mangrul Dastgir, Distt. Amravati ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.M. Daga and Mr. A.Y. Sharma, Advs. for applicant. Mr. N.R. Rode, APP. for respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI J. DATE : 10.6.2 011 . Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent. This is an application, filed by the applicant (accused no.1), in Crime No.60/2009, registered with the police station Mangrul Dastgir, Distt. Amravati under section 143, 302, 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Incident occurred on 8/9/2009. The applicant along with six others came on motorcycle to the house of deceased. It was evening time. They were armed with sticks. At that time the deceased Bhagwantrao reached the house from his agricultural land. After seeing him, all the accused persons started giving lathi blows on his person. It seems 2 that on earlier day the deceased had an altercation with the brother of the accused no.1 – applicant. The sons of deceased by name Roshan and Gaurav were also injured. Roshan went to the polcie station Magrul Dastgir and lodged F.I.R. The deceased was taken to the hospital in auto rickshaw. On arrival, in the hospital, he was declared dead. The postmortem examination revealed that the deceased had sustained number of fractures on the skull. However, only two surface wounds were noticed. Besides injuries on the skull, the deceased had sustained fracture of left elbow right. All injuries were ante mortem. Learned counsel for the applicant – accused contended that all other co-accused have been released and on the ground of parity the present applicant – accused is entitled for the similar treatment. He invited my attention to the contents in the postmortem report. According to him, if seven persons had assaulted the deceased with sticks, there would have been number of surface wounds. Internal examination revealed that there were number of fractures on the skull. The left elbow joint was also found fracture. Roshan who is the complainant in this case had sustained injuries which were possible by hard and blunt object. The brother Gaurav had also sustained injuries by blunt object. The F.I.R. clearly point out the role of the 3 applicant – accused. He had brought all the accused persons to the house of the deceased to settle the scure. Reason was, the deceased had an altercation with his brother on the earlier day. That being so, principle of parity cannot be applied to the case of the present applicant – accused. I, therefore, find no merit in this application. Application is rejected. Considering the fact that incident occurred on 8/9/2009, the trial is expedited. As far as possible, it should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. JUDGE Tambaskar.