Case Note & Summary
The present criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, dated 11 February 1998 in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1997. The trial court convicted the three appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine, with default simple imprisonment. Additionally, appellants No. 1 and 2 were convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and fine. The case stemmed from an incident on 18 August 1996 at village Ghubadsaka, where a dispute over playing dhol in a Maruti temple led to an assault. The complainant, Sitaram Kashiram Gahale, objected to the accused dancing to dhol beats in the temple, following which he was allegedly assaulted by sticks. Subsequently, the deceased Sitaram Ramji Tumbade, along with others who arrived at the spot, was attacked. Sitaram Tumbade received grievous injuries and later succumbed. The police initially charged seven accused with offences under Sections 148, 149, 302, 324 read with 34 IPC and relevant provisions of the Bombay Police Act, alleging formation of an unlawful assembly and causing death. After trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including the complainant (PW1), injured witnesses Soma Dive (PW5) and Namdeo Gahale (PW6), an independent eye-witness Shrawan Gavit (PW10), doctors, and panch witnesses. The trial court, however, found that the charges of murder and unlawful assembly were not proved. It held that accused Nos. 1 and 2 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased under Section 325 IPC, and all three appellants voluntarily caused hurt to the injured witnesses under Section 324 IPC. The other co-accused were acquitted. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the instant appeal, which was admitted on 26 February 1998 and the sentence suspended. Before the High Court, the parties advanced arguments regarding the credibility of witnesses. The appellants contended that the night was dark, identification was impossible, and injuries could have been caused by stones, not sticks. They highlighted material omissions in the police statements and suggested that the witnesses were interested due to prior enmity. The State supported the conviction, pointing to the consistent evidence of the injured witnesses and the independent testimony of PW10, which corroborated the prosecution case. The High Court, while analysing the evidence, observed that despite certain omissions, the core involvement of the appellants, particularly accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the assault, was established. The testimony of PW10, an independent witness, was given significant weight to corroborate the accounts of the injured witnesses. However, the provided excerpt of the judgment ends mid-analysis, and the final order of the High Court is not available. Therefore, the outcome of the appeal remains unknown based on the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under sections 324 and 325 IPC by the trial court is justified in light of the evidence on record.
Law Points
- evaluation of evidence of injured witnesses
- importance of independent witness testimony
- effect of omissions in statement under Section 161 CrPC
- conviction can be based on sole testimony of injured witness if credible
- charges of murder and unlawful assembly require stricter proof
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (11) 41
Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1998
M.K. Kocharekar with Sachin Gite for the appellants; Y.Y. Dabake, APP for the State
Namdeo Tulshiram Mohadkar, Pundlik Tulshiram Mohadkar, Dilip Mahadu Raut
The State of Maharashtra for Sitaram Kashiram Gahale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to quash their conviction and sentence under sections 324 and 325 IPC.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by the trial court's judgment dated 11 February 1998, the appellants contended that the evidence was insufficient and riddled with omissions, and that the trial court erred in convicting them.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1997, convicted appellant nos. 1 and 2 under section 325 IPC and all three appellants under section 324 IPC, while acquitting co-accused nos. 3 to 6 of all charges, and acquitting the appellants of charges under sections 302, 148, 149 IPC and Bombay Police Act provisions.
Issues
Whether the appellants voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Sitaram Tumbade under section 325 IPC
Whether the appellants voluntarily caused hurt to the injured witnesses under section 324 IPC
Whether the prosecution case was undermined by material omissions and inconsistencies in witness testimonies
Whether the evidence of interested witnesses could be relied upon without independent corroboration
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the night was dark, making identification of assailants impossible, and that stones were pelted causing injuries, not sticks.
The appellants pointed out that the complainant's police statement omitted key details regarding the roles of certain accused, and that the injured witnesses made improvements in court.
The State supported the trial court's conviction, contending that the testimonies of the injured witnesses and the independent eye-witness (PW10) were credible and established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The defence also suggested that the witnesses were interested and had prior enmity with the accused, thus their evidence should be discarded.
Judgment Excerpts
thereby convicting all the three appellants under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo SI for two months. The appellant nos.1 and 2 are also aggrieved by their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC, and being sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo SI for two months.
PW 10 corroborate about the time of the incident and has deposed that his house is situated at a distance of 100 ft from the temple. On hearing the commotion, when he rushed to the spot, he saw that Namdeo and Pundlik were beating Sitaram Tumbade by sticks.
Procedural History
The incident occurred on 18 August 1996. A complaint was lodged on 19 August 1996. The police filed a chargesheet against seven accused under sections 148, 149, 302, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Bombay Police Act. The case was committed to sessions as Sessions Case No. 6 of 1997. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, by judgment dated 11 February 1998, convicted accused nos. 1 and 2 under section 325 IPC and all three appellants (accused 1, 2, 7) under section 324 IPC, acquitting the rest. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 1998, which was admitted on 26 February 1998 and sentence suspended. The appeal was heard by Justice Bharati Dangre and reserved on 2 July 2021, and judgment was pronounced on 16 November 2021. The decision on the appeal is not provided in the available judgment excerpt.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 324, 325, 302, 148, 149, 34
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1)(3)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
