1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.232 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra ..APPELLANT (Ori. Complainant) VERSUS 1. Babasaheb s/o Ganpatrao Mandlik, age : 50 yrs., 2. Anil s/o Babasaheb Mandlik, age : 20 years, 3. Shalini @Tameez w/o Babasaheb Mandlik, age : 35 yrs., All R/o Bhogaon (Shivar, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna) 4. Syed Usman s/o Syed Abdul, age : 35 yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o Bhogaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna ..RESPONDENTS (Ori. Accused) Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the appellant; Mrs Varsha S. Ghanekar,Advocate holding for Mr C.P. Sengaonkar for respondents. 2 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.342 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra ..APPELLANT (Ori. Complainant) VERSUS Bhaskar Chandrabhan Awasarmal, age : 42 yrs., occu. Police Service, R/o Jalna ..RESPONDENT (Ori. Accused) Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the appellant; Mrs Varsha S. Ghanekar,Advocate holding for Mr C.P. Sengaonkar for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 11th February, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1991 has been filed by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondents/original accused no.1 to 4, for an offence punishable under section 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, being an offence 3 alleged against original accused no.4, by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, dated 1.6.1991, in Sessions Case No.107 of 1990. Criminal Appeal No.342 of 1992 is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, dated 1.6.1991, in Sessions Case No.149 of 1990 acquitting the respondent/accused for offence punishable under section 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. Since both the Sessions Cases were decided by the Trial Court by a judgment and as the facts are interlinked, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The Investigating Officer was not examined as he was an accused in Sessions Case No.149 of 1990 for an offence punishable under section 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The entire prosecution case is unfolded through the testimony of eye-witnesses who are P.W.1 Digambar, P.W.2 Jalinder, P.W.3 Deorao, P.W.5 Onkar and P.W.14 Sanjay. In fact, the main stake of the prosecution is the evidence of these eye-witnesses as the prosecution alleges that the respondents had set fire to the wife of respondent no.1 and mother of respondent no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1991. In order to deal with the submissions of the learned A.P.P. as well as the submissions advanced before us by Mrs Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 4 P.W.1 Digambar states that he is the brother of P.W.2 Jalindar. He further states that he had purchased 10 Acres and his father had purchased 5 Acres land out of Gut No.228 at Bhogaon about ten years prior. The said land was initially owned by some persons from Holwadi. One Shahaji was the middle man in the said sale transaction. From out of this Gut No.228, about 65 acres of land is owned by original accused no.1 Babasaheb. Babasaheb had also purchased the land from the same owner who had sold the land to P.W.1 Digambar. Shahaji was also the middle man to negotiate the purchase of land by accused no.1 Babasaheb. According to P.W.1 Digambar when he had purchased the said land, the said land was in possession of accused no.1 and he was not permitting P.W.1 Digambar to enter upon the land. According to P.W.1 Digambar the entire consideration had not been paid and the balance consideration was promised to be paid after about 2 to 3 months and for this reason Babasaheb was not permitting P.W.1 Digambar to enter upon the land. According to P.W.1 Digambar, the balance consideration was paid to Shahaji but accused no.1 Babasaheb was insisting to make the payment to accused no.1 Babasaheb after getting it refunded from Shahaji. It appears that accused no.1 had obtained an agreement from P.W.1 Digambar and his father agreeing to pay the remaining consideration to Shahaji and accordingly Digambar and his father had paid the balance consideration to Shahaji. Shahaji meanwhile had stated that since the sale transaction was completed and as mutation was effected, Digambar should cultivate the land, who expressed the 5 inability to consider cultivating the land on account of non availability of bullocks and implements. Shahaji had agreed to provide the bullocks and implements for cultivating the land and accordingly Digambar and others had come to the agricultural land for cultivating the land. Message was sent to Shahaji that Digambar would come to the agricultural land on Saturday and accordingly on Saturday at 10.00 a.m. Digambar, his wife Dropadabai, his brother Machindra, one Bhagwat, Navnath and Bhaurao went to the agricultural land. At that time his father Deorao, his brother Jalindar, P.W.5 Onkar and Bhima had come to the land with bullocks and implements. After taking breakfast Digambar and others entered upon the land and were about to yoke the bullocks to the ploughs when accused no.1 Babasaheb, his son accused no.2 Anil, accused no.3 & 4 came to the land. One Sanjay, nephew of Babasaheb had also come with the accused and wife of Babasaheb had also accompanied them. Accused no.2 Anil was carrying an aluminum pot containing kerosene and also a stick. Babasaheb was armed with an axe while the younger sons were armed with sticks. The accused stood at a distance of about 15 to 20 paces from the ploughs and thereafter there was some altercation between them. Accused no.1 Babasaheb threatened them and told them to face the consequences in case the ploughs were yoked. As soon as the bullocks were yoked to the ploughs, Anil poured kerosene on the wife of accused no.1 Babasaheb, i.e. mother of accused no.2 Anil. Wife of accused no.1 Babasaheb was standing in front of the group. Accused no.1 Babasaheb asked Anil to strike the 6 match and since Anil was hesitating to light the match and as the match stick was extinguished on two or three occasions, Babasaheb brandished the axe and threatened him to set fire to his wife. On the third occasion Anil lighted the match stick and set fire to the lady. Thereafter the lady collapsed cursing Babasaheb. The group of the accused rushed at the complainant party with axe and sticks. The complainant party started running helter and skelter but P.W.1 Digambar was given a blow of axe on his left leg below the knee by accused no.1. Father of Digambar shouted and asked Digambar to flee from the scene and accordingly Digambar ran to Mangrool. There was a meeting in Mangrool and the persons in the meeting asked him as to what had had happened to his leg and he narrated the incident to them. P.W.2 Jalindar also joined him and the persons in the meeting directed him to go to the police station and provided transportation for going to Tirthpuri. He narrated the incident in the police station and was referred to the hospital where his wound was sutured. In a jeep the police rushed to the scene of the incident. He noticed that his father was in the field and he had informed him and Jalindar that he had been tied with a rope to the trunk of a tree and was released only after the arrival of the police. The accused were present in the field and the dead body of that lady was lying at the same place. On the next day in the evening P.S.I. had informed him that they had committed murder and arrested them. In cross-examination he initially stated that on three or four occasions prior to the incident they had gone to plough the field. He corrected himself to 7 state that on three or four occasions they had not gone for ploughing but to ask for permission to plough the land. He has also admitted that on all these occasions accused no.1 Babasaheb was asking to pay the balance consideration and then to start ploughing. He has admitted that two days prior to the incident he had sent his father for making arrangements for the bullocks and the implements. He further admits that when kerosene was poured on the lady she had not uttered anything and had kept quiet. The lady had also not stated anything when Babasaheb was asking his son to set his wife on fire. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that Babasaheb had threatened Anil to kill him in the event he did not set fire to his mother. He has admitted that Shahaji, Baliram and Pandurang are also accused along with him in the said incident. He has admitted that he was in custody for more than three months and his statement came to be recorded after five months of his release by P.S.I. Suryawanshi. 3. P.W.2 Jalindar also deposes about going to the land for ploughing and in respect of the incident he states that he had gone to Beed in the afternoon on Friday and had stayed at Rampuri. Along with Bhima and Onkar he had taken the bullock-cart and the two bullocks to the field. He admits that he was accompanied by his father. He states that they had yoked the bullocks to the ploughs and immediately the accused, his son and two ladies had arrived there. Accused no.2 Anil poured kerosene on his mother which he had carried in an aluminum pot. He 8 states that accused no.2 sat down to light the match stick and on the third occasion accused Babasaheb had told him to light the match stick, otherwise he would kill him. accused no.3 Shalini had also instigated Anil to light the match stick. Accordingly, the lady who was doused with kerosene was set ablaze. He states that thereafter he fled from the scene and while running he had seen that his brother Digambar was assaulted. He states that he had gone to Mangrool where he met his brother P.W.1 Digambar and with him he had gone to Tirthpuri in a truck. They were referred to the hospital by a P.S.I. and thereafter were taken to the scene of the incident in a jeep. He states that he had seen his father tied to a Neem tree. The accused were also present at the scene of the offence. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated that accused no.1 Babasaheb had threatened Anil to kill him if he did not set his mother ablaze. P.W.3 Deorao, father of P.W.1 Digambar and Jalindar also deposes on similar lines and in respect of the incident states that when they had gone to the land of accused no.1 Babasaheb, the accused had come to the agricultural land. Babasaheb was armed with an axe while Anil carried a pot containing kerosene in one hand and a stick in the other hand. He states that accused Babasaheb asked Anil to pour kerosene on his mother and as Anil was hesitating, accused Babasaheb again asked Anil to pour kerosene. Accordingly Anil poured kerosene and accused no.3 Tamij asked him to set his mother ablaze. accordingly, Anil lighted the match stick and set his mother ablaze. As soon as his mother had fallen on the ground Babasaheb and Anil rushed 9 at the complainant party and Babasaheb dealt a blow of axe to Digambar on his left leg. He states that he sat down as he was frightened and Babasaheb made others plough the land where the lady was lying and then unyoked bullocks and took P.W.3 Deorao to a Neem tree and tied him. At about 4.00 to 5.00 p.m., a police jeep arrived there and sons of Deorao had come in the said jeep. On hearing the sound of the jeep Deorao was released. In cross-examination he has admitted that he was dissatisfied with Babasaheb as Babasaheb had kept his daughter as a mistress. He has also admitted that it was Babasaheb who had suggested to him to purchase the land. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that accused no.2 had poured kerosene on his mother and had set her ablaze. He states that he was tied to the Neem tree as the accused intended to make allegations against Deorao and others for having set the lady ablaze. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that accused no.3 Shalini was exhorting accused no.2 Anil to set his mother ablaze. He has further admitted that accused no.3 is his daughter and mother of Anil and Shalini as both were wives of accused no.1 Babasaheb. 4. P.W.5 Onkar states that two days prior to the incident P.W.1 Digambar had requested him to come to the agricultural land on payment of wages. Accordingly along with Jalindar and Bhima he had gone to Beed and from Beed to Georai and from Georai to Rampuri and on the 10 morning they had collected the bullocks and the implements and had gone to the agricultural land. He states that as soon as the bullocks had been yoked to the plough, accused and others had arrived there and Babasaheb told P.W.3 Deorao to face the consequences in the event Deorao started ploughing. Accused no.2 then poured kerosene on a lady and Babasaheb asked Anil to light a match stick and set the lady ablaze. Accordingly Anil in his third attempt lighted the match stick and set the lady ablaze. On seeing the lady in flames he and others fled from the scene. 5. P.W. 14 Sanjay states that accused no.1 is his uncle. He states that mother of Anil i.e. his aunt was illtreated by Babasaheb and accused no.3. In respect of the incident he states that he had informed P.W.3 Deorao that there was likely to be some incident and Deorao had stated that he would see as to what would happen. He states that as soon as the complainant party arrived at the land, the accused arrived there and accused no.1 Babasaheb and accused no.3 Shalini made wife of Babasaheb stand in front while Anil was asked to pour kerosene. Anil was told by accused no.1 Baburao and accused no.3 Shalini and thereafter Anil poured kerosene. Accused Babasaheb and Shalini then asked Anil to light a match stick and accordingly set his mother ablaze. Thereafter Anil assaulted P.W.1 Digambar with a stick and then Babasaheb assaulted Digambar with an axe and thereafter P.W.3 Deorao was tied to a tree. He states that there were illicit relations between 11 accused no.2 and accused no.3 and he had seen them in compromising position. He states that after the incident he had left the house of accused no.1 Babasaheb and was staying with his mother at Maheshwadi and he states that his statement was recorded by a Magistrate at Aurangabad. His statement is at Exh.66. Omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement about the instances of illtreatment given to the wife of Babasaheb by accused no.1 Babasaheb and accused no.3 Shalini. Similarly omission has been duly proved that he had not stated in his previous statement that accused Babasaheb and accused no.3 Shalini had asked Swarnmala, wife of Anil to stand and that at the instance of Babasaheb his earlier statement came to be recorded in which he had stated that Swarnmala had been set ablaze by P.W.3 Deorao, P.W.1 Digambar and others. 6. The Trial Court has disbelieved the eye-witnesses on account of inter se variance in respect of the incident. The variance is in respect of setting ablaze Swarnmala. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the evidence of the eye-witnesses as well as the findings of the Trial Court. Upon such perusal we are of the opinion that the discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses inter se in relation to setting of Swarnmala ablaze are glaring and blatant. We further find that the allegations of the prosecution that the accused had deliberately asked his son Anil to set his own mother ablaze has tasking human credulity for its acceptance. Evidence of none of the eye- 12 witnesses, therefore, inspires confidence for its acceptance. Undisputedly, the prosecution witnesses have been arrested on the allegations that they had set Swarnmala ablaze. In that background, therefore, the reasons advanced by the Trial Court for acquitting the respondents/accused cannot be said to be perverse warranting any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court appears to be a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 7. The Trial Court at paragraph 15 of the judgment has also rejected the confessional statement of accused no.4 Osman at Exh.98 as the said statement was an exculpatory statement. We have perused the said statement and we agree with the reasoning advanced by the Trial Court. 8. In respect of Criminal Appeal No.342 of 1992, this appeal has been filed against the respondent challenging his acquittal for offence punishable under section 201 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was of causing the disappearance of the evidence and preparing record knowing it to be false with an intention to screen the real offenders. At paragraph 29 the Trial Court observed that P.W.18 Jagannath was not telling the whole truth as he was resiling from the material portion in the movement diary at Exh.80 that accused Babasaheb had also come to the Police Chowki. The contents of the diary at Exh.18 support the version of the accused that accused Babasaheb had come to the Police 13 Chowki. The contention of P.W.18 Jagannath that the entry was taken down at the instance of accused P.S.I. Avsarmal was proved to be an omission in his previous statement. Similarly, the contradiction in his previous statement the contradictions being marked as Exhs.156 and 157 clearly disclose that accused Babasaheb had arrived at the Chowki. In the light of such vacillating evidence of this witness, the Trial Court found that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P.W.18 Jagannath. The Trial Court at paragraph 30 chose not to place reliance on P.W.19 Madhavrao in the light of conflicting evidence of P.W.19 Madhavrao and P.W.18 Jagannath and the evidence of both these witnesses could not be reconciled. The Trial Court at paragraph 31 of the judgment observed that the third witness was P.W.20 Eknath Kakad. His version was poles apart to the version of the other two witnesses. Similarly, the contention of P.W.20 Eknath that respondent P.S.I. Avsarmal has accepted bribe of Rs.15,000/- from P.W.13 Bappasaheb, son in law of Babasaheb at the Tirthpuri Guest House was proved to be an omission. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence against respondent P.S.I. Avsarmal. We have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 14 9. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos.232 of 1991 and 342 of 1992 are dismissed confirming the acquittal of respondents/accused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/cria232.91