1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1742 OF 2009 Rajendra Vitthal Raut .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/b Mr. V.V. Purwant for the Petitioner Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the applicant in Cri. Appln 383 of 2010 Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J RESERVED ON : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2010 PRONOUNCED ON : 27th OCTOBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner- original accused, learned APP for the State and learned advocate for the complainant. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 31st March 2009 passed by learned JMFC, Barshi below Exhibit 1 1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc 164 in R.C.C. No. 149 of 2006 and order dated 30th May 2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-III, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 101 of 2009. 3. By order dated 31st March 2009, the learned JMFC rejected the application of the petitioner wherein it was prayed that Section 307 of IPC is not attracted to the present case, hence no case is made out for committal of the case to the Court of Sessions. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision being CRA No. 101 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Judge at Solapur. By order dated 30th May 2009, the said Revision came to be dismissed,hence this petition. 4. Mr. Gupte, senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that the incident was not preplanned and it happened on the spur of moment. He further submitted that the injuries caused are not as such which show that there was any intention to cause death of any person. He submitted that though a number of persons were injured in the incident, the injuries of all persons except Parmeshwar are simple in nature. Even as far as Parmeshwar is concerned, the injuries are not as such to attract Section 307 of IPC. Mr. Gupte submitted that it is not on the basis of the injuries that Section 307 can be applied but it also has to be seen whether the accused had 2 1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc any intention to cause death or knowledge that any act on his part would cause death. 5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it would be necessary to state brief facts of the case. The prosecution case as it emerges from the FIR lodged by the PSI who was on bandobast duty is as under: At about 11.30 am, the applicant who belongs to Shivsena party came to Devgaon along with his party members for a meeting. The complainant was on bandobast duty at that time. During the meeting, one Mr. Kolekar, a person from the party of the petitioner was giving a speech. During the speech, he spoke against the candidate from NCP party, due to which a verbal fight took place. The complainant and others pacified both sides, thereupon the mob became quiet and there was silence. Kolekar continued with his speech. After some time, one person from Shivsena party threw a stone towards the members of NCP Party. Thereupon, persons from NCP party started shouting and throwing stones. At that time, the present applicant and Haribhau Kolekar came to the mike on the stage and told their party workers and followers to take out all the weapons which were in their cars and to go to every house and and kill them. On hearing this, the party workers and followers took out the weapons from their jeep like swords, sura and wooden logs. On seeing this, persons 3 1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc started running helter-skelter. In the meanwhile, applicant took out his fire arm and fired a shot in the air. On hearing this, the crowd got even more terrified. In the meantime, in the ensuing chaos, the party workers of Shivsena forcibly entered into the houses of members of NCP Party by breaking the doors and caused injury to some persons including 1. Parmeshwar, 2. Balaji, 3. Rajaram, 4. Ranjit, 5. Kasturabai and 6. Kusum. They also upturned one vehicle and caused damage to the vehicle as well as a tractor. Out of persons injured, Balaji, Ranjit, Kusum, Kasturabai, Rajaram and Vijayabai received simple injuries. Parmeshwar sustained grievous injury on the parietal region of the size 7 cm X 1 cm. This injury had caused fracture of the skull. 6. The statement of Parmeshwar shows that he was present in the meeting when the stone throwing started. He has stated that the applicant shouted and incited the persons he had brought with him from outside, to take out the weapons from their cars and murder them. On hearing the applicant, the persons who were with the applicant took out swords, iron rods from their cars. Meanwhile, the applicant took out a fire arm which was with him and he fired with the fire arm from the stage. Due to this, more terror was caused in minds of the persons in the village and they started running. On account of firing by the applicant, his party members were 4 1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc further encouraged and they started assaulting anyone who came in front of them. Some of them broke open the doors of residential houses, entered the houses and started assaulting the people therein. Parmeshwar has stated that he too got frightened and started running. He also came to be assaulted in the incident. 7. In the present case, the only person whose injuries can be said to attract Section 307 of IPC is Parmeshwar. He has sustained injury on the parietal region which is a vital part of the body. The said injury was 7 cm X 1 cm and it has caused fracture of the skull. From the words i.e " take out the weapons which were in their cars and to go to every house and kill them', which were used by the applicant in order to incite his party workers and followers, it is seen that he intended to cause death of persons. He has clearly exhorted his party members and followers on the mike that they should go and murder the people of the other side. Not only has he incited his party workers to do so but in order to encourage them, he has also stood on the stage and fired with his fire arm. No doubt, this act of firing by the applicant has not caused any injury to anyone, however, the words which he uttered on the stage on the mike show that he intended that death should be caused. In the present case, it cannot be said that there was no premeditation because the words of the 5 1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc applicant wherein he told his party workers that they should go to their vehicles and take out the weapons and assault the members of other party clearly shows that they had come prepared to assault with deadly weapons. 8. Parmeshwar has sustained injury on the head which is grievous in nature i.e fracture of the skull. Looking to the nature of injuries and the words used by the applicant, in my opinion, case under Section 307 is made out. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the order of learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge. The petition is dismissed. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 6 1a. cr wp 1742-09.doc 7