Mahadeo Laxman Sarane And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra

2. At the threshold we may notice that all the four accused including the two appellants herein are brothers. The deceased Bhimashankar Madolappa Kapse was the brother of Kashappa Kapse (PW-5) who is the informant in this ease. The accused are the sons of their sister. It would thus appear that the parties are related to each other.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26th June, 1994 at about 8.30 P.M. an occurrence took place in which the deceased was assaulted by the appellants resulting in his death. The first information report was lodged by the informant, PW-5 who, as noticed earlier, is the brother of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence the informant, PW-5 along with PW-8 Mallikarjun Kapse and PW-12 Babling Patil was sitting on the katta in front of the Gram Panchayat. While they were sitting and chatting they noticed the deceased passing that way. Sometime later they noticed the appellants herein armed with sword and knife and two of their brothers (since acquitted) going in the same direction. The assault on the deceased took place at a distance of about 150 ft. from the katta where they were sitting. Appellant No. 1 Mahadeo is said to have given two or three blows on the neck of the deceased while appellant Raju gave him two or three injuries on his abdomen. They are also said to have raised the slogan "Kamaleshwar Maharaj Ki Jai" which attracted the attention of the eye-witnesses. It is further the case of the prosecution that Bhartabai (PW-13) who was related to the deceased as his niece resided in a house about 18 ft. from the place of occurrence. On hearing the commotion she had also come out and witnessed the incident.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that on the following day that is, on 27" June, 1994 at about 11.00 A.M. the appellants herein appeared with their blood stained weapons and narrated the incident to the police in the presence of PW-15 Head Constable.

11. The Trial Court did not find the evidence of PW-5 to be reliable because many questions put to him in regard to matters not related to the incident were not satisfactorily answered by him, PW-5 in reply to a question as to whether Kalawati had resorted, to judicial proceeding against the deceased, his answer was that he had no knowledge about it. Similarly, when he was questioned as to whether he knew that appellant No. 1 Mahadeo had a brick kiln business in Degaon and was residing there along with his family members and that appellant No. 2 Raju was working at MIDC Solapur, he replied that he had no knowledge of these facts. The Trial Court, therefore, held that since the witness showed ignorance about facts which he must have known, he was not a witness speaking the truth and his veracity was doubtful. He need not refer to so many other questions unrelated to the incident which were put to this witness in response to which he pleaded ignorance.

17. The State preferred an appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal which has been allowed as against the appellants. The High Court in a detailed judgment dealing with all aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Trial Court could not be upheld. It has dealt with each and every reason recorded in the judgment of the Trial Court and found that the reasoning of the Trial Court was highly unsatisfactory and on such general considerations an acquittal could not be recorded particularly, when there were as many as four eye-witnesses whose credibility could not be doubted.

23. We may notice that the eye-witnesses did not ascribe any role to the two acquitted accused who are the brothers of the appellants. This is indeed indicative of the fact that the eye-witnesses did not intend to falsely implicate innocent persons.

24. We have, therefore., considered the entire evidence on record and the reasoning in the two judgments before us. We find that the reasons recorded by the Trial Court while recording an order of acquittal are unreasonable and perverse. On the basis of the evidence on record it was not possible to take a view in favour of the accused. The High Court was therefore, justified in setting aside the order of acquittal.

25. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.