Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari vs State Of Maharashtra

Appellant herein along with Anil Shivram Pawar (Accused No.1), Premraj Hirman Chaudhary (Accused No. 3) and Bapu @ Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (Accused No.4) were tried for committing the murder of one Bhaulal Jadhav. Bhaulal Jadhav was an accused in a case of murder of the father of the appellant and accused No. 3. Allegedly, when cremation of Hiraman was taking place, the appellant took a vow to take revenge of murder of his father. Bhaulal (deceased) on or about 13.02.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. was going to Jalgaon on a motorcycle. He was accompanied by Lotu Eko Patil (PW-4). When they were at distance of about 3 k.m. from Jalgaon, the accused persons who were in a Maruti van parked the vehicle by the side of road got down. The motorcycle was stopped by Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Premraj (Accused No. 3) is said to have caught hold Bhaulal and Manilal (Accused No.2) and Gangaram (Accused No. 4) inflicted stab injuries with knives. An attempt to rescue the deceased by PW-4 resulted in a threat to him, whereupon he started running towards Jalgaon. Bhaulal also tried to save himself by running away from the said place. He was chased by Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and was again assaulted with knives.

PW-4 immediately went to the Taluka Police Station Jalgaon on a vehicle of a passer by. A First Information Report was lodged at about 11.45 a.m. Bhaulal was taken to the hospital in a tractor. At about 12.45 p.m. he died.

2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Lotu Eco Patil (PW-4) and Govinda Shamrao Marathe (PW-5) were examined as eye- witnesses to the occurrence.

3. We have noticed hereinbefore that PW-4 was the informant. PW-5 was the driver of the Maruti van, which was taken on hire by the accused persons. They had gone to Onkareshwar and Saptashringi Gad in the District of Nasik. The learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence brought on record convicted all the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment in the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also convicted under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 2 was further convicted under Section 506 IPC.

4. Indisputably, Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe preferred an appeal before this Court against the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court, which was marked as Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2006. The said appeal has since been dismissed by this Court by a judgment and order dated 22.11.2006. [See Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra [2006 (12) SCALE 259]. Premraj Hiraman Chaudhari (Accused No. 3) has not preferred any appeal.

8. It may be true that there are two groups in the said village. PW-4 accepted the said fact. Hiraman and Manilal were prosecuted for attempting to murder of Bhaulal. They were, however, acquitted. Bhaulal and some 8- 9 persons were said to have committed the murder of Hiraman, father of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, wherefor a criminal case was initiated against them.

12. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the deposition of PWs 4 and

19. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.