Case Note & Summary
In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, two criminal appeals were heard together arising from a sessions trial. The accused appellants were convicted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.122 of 1996 for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The trial court sentenced each accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1000 with default stipulation. The accused challenged conviction in Criminal Appeal No.136 of 1996, while the State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal No.674 of 1996 against the same accused. The substantive sentence was suspended by the High Court pending appeal. The prosecution case stemmed from village faction rivalry between two political groups. The complainant Subhash Yadavrao Patil, examined as PW7, had contested elections from rival groups and defeated the accused group on multiple occasions, leading to enmity. On 13 December 1993, while returning from Tembhurni to Malegaon on bicycle, he was waylaid near the village by the accused persons. He alleged that accused No.4 pelted a stone hitting his back, accused No.3 gave a blow of satur on his left leg, and multiple accused pelted stones, one hitting his head. After he fell, accused No.3 mounted his chest, accused No.12 held hands, accused No.6 held legs, and accused No.3 gave a blow of satur on right leg below knee, followed by sword blows by accused Nos.12 and 1, causing near amputation of the leg. Accused No.10 inflicted a sickle injury on right arm below elbow, and accused No.1 again struck with sword. The assailants fled upon hearing a vehicle horn. The injured crawled to the road and was rescued by a tempo driver, taken to Tembhurni police station and Primary Health Centre, and later to Sassoon Hospital, Pune, where his right leg below knee and right forearm were amputated. The trial court relied on the testimony of PW7, which was extensively cross-examined. The accused pointed to political rivalry, previous criminal cases, and alleged motive to falsely implicate; they also suggested that PW7 appeared in court without prosthetic limbs to gain sympathy. However, the court observed that his evidence remained consistent and was corroborated by medical certificate Exhibit-59 proved by PW8 Dr. Vijay Upase, which recorded sharp amputated cuts over right lower leg and right forearm, incised wounds, and abrasions. The statement of the injured was initially recorded under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act at the Primary Health Centre and again at Sassoon Hospital. The appeals involved the question whether the conviction was sustainable on evidence, particularly the credibility of the injured witness and corroboration by medical evidence. The provided excerpt ended before the final analysis and operative order, so the ultimate decision of the High Court was not available in the text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly and Rioting - Sections 147, 148, 326 read with 149 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act - Conviction for assault with dangerous weapons causing amputation - The prosecution alleged that twelve accused, with common object, attacked the complainant with stones, satur, sword, and sickle, causing amputation of right leg and right forearm - The trial court convicted all accused under these provisions; the High Court was seized of appeals against conviction and sentence (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence - Statement under Section 32 - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act - Admissibility of statement recorded by medical officer - The injured's statement was purportedly recorded under Section 32 at Primary Health Centre, Tembhurni before being referred to higher centre - The statement formed basis for FIR and later corroborated by oral testimony of the injured (Paras 2,6). C) Criminal Trial - Injured Witness Testimony and Medical Corroboration - Credibility of PW7 - The injured witness narrated the assault and identified weapons; his evidence was tested in lengthy cross-examination and stood the test of truthfulness - Medical certificate Exhibit-59 proved amputation injuries consistent with his account - Held that evidence of PW7 was corroborated by medical evidence (Paras 7-10). D) Criminal Procedure - Appeals and Suspension of Sentence - High Court jurisdiction - Two appeals filed against same Sessions Case judgment; High Court suspended substantive sentence pending appeal; appeal abated against respondent nos. 3,4,10 and 12 - Held that appeals required adjudication on merits (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 326 read with 149 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act was sustainable on the evidence; whether the testimony of injured witness PW7 was credible and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence; whether the appeals against conviction and sentence should be allowed.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - the provided text is incomplete and does not include the final operative order of the High Court.
Law Points
- Sections 147
- 148
- 326 read with 149 IPC require proof of unlawful assembly with common object and use of deadly weapons causing grievous hurt
- Section 135 Bombay Police Act penalizes violation of orders under the Act
- statement recorded under Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act can be used in evidence
- testimony of injured witness if credible and corroborated by medical evidence can sustain conviction
- medical certificate proving amputation injuries corroborates ocular account.
