Union Of India vs Bali Ramu Pawar & Ors

3.45 P.M. on the same day only and some places of wooden handle of Tikam lying on the spot namely Article Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were seized under the said panchnama Exh. 52. On the same day the statements of certain witnesses were recorded. On 8/6/1998 after getting the information of death of Virendra Choudhary, the inquest was drawn at Surat by P.S.I. Umra Police Station Surat vide Exh. 78. Some of the accused namely accused no. 2, 5, 6 and 7 came to be arrested on 8/6/1998 at the hands of P.S.I. Manoj Patel. On 13/6/1998, when these accused were under the police custody, certain weapons including sword and wooden places of handle of Tikam were recovered from them pursuant to their statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act., 1872 (in short `Evidence Act'). During the course of investigation the local police also recorded statements of various witnesses, seized rickshaw bearing No GJ 15.V 6474 on 2/9/1998 from the courtyard of one Babubhai Shanker under panchnama Exh. 16.

It appears that being not satisfied by the investigation of the Local Police, the complainant Kumar Shanmugam had filed Writ Petition bearing No. 6904/98, in the Bombay High Court making grievances for not arresting 4 the accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 in spite of their names appearing in the FIR. The High Court vide its order dated 16/9/1998 transferred the investigation of the case to C.B.I. In pursuance of the directions, Dy. S.P. Sinha (P.W.28) took charge of the matter in the middle of October, 1998 and the case was re-registered under RC. No.C(S)/98-SCN-II/DLI in a Special Branch of C.B.I. under Sections 302, 307, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C. etc. Then he with the assistance of other officers recorded statements of some more witnesses including Dr. Gulab Patel (P.W.5), Aslam Khutliwala (P.W.3), besides supplementary statement of complainant Kumar Shanmugam (P.W.11), Vasu Pillai (P.W.12), Kumar Ganpati (P.W.15). Then he arrested the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on 26/7/1999 and accused No. 8 and 9 in October, 1999. The identification parade was also held on 8/8/1999 for identifying the accused Nos. 8 and 9. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed against 12 persons including accused Nos. 1 to 9 on 23-10-1999 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silvassa.

6 After dealing with various offences purported to have been made against accused Nos. 1 to 4 the trial Court found them guilty and imposed sentences. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted of the charges relating to Section 120B IPC. Accused Nos. 5 to 9 the present respondents were found not guilty and were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and accused Nos. 5 to 9 from all the charges. The High Court dismissed the appeal and observed as follows:

8. That being so, the order of the High Court is also not maintainable.

9. Undisputedly, as pointed out above, the appeal of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 who are convicted is pending. It would be appropriate to take up the appeals together for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. The appeal shall be taken up along with the appeal filed by the convicted accused persons.