Bombay High Court Examines Appeals by Convicts in Group Assault and Murder Case; Key Eyewitness Accounts Found Suffering from Material Omissions. Evidence of Recovery of Weapons and Common Object Under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149 Re-evaluated.

Case Note & Summary

These four criminal appeals arose from a common judgment and order dated 14 June 2006 passed by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Case No. 19/2003, convicting fifteen accused persons for offences of rioting and murder with common object. The prosecution case stemmed from an incident that occurred on 18 December 2002 in Mubarakpur village, District Yavatmal. As per the FIR lodged by Vivekanand Alone (PW1), a quarrel erupted when accused Gokul Rangari taunted his father, Ramdas Alone, while the latter was defecating. When Vivekanand intervened, Gokul assaulted him with an iron tommy bar. Vivekanand, his parents, and his brother then hired an auto-rickshaw to go to Babhulgaon Police Station to lodge a report. Near a hutment area, about fifteen persons obstructed the auto. Raju Baile allegedly stabbed Ramdas with a spear on his ribs and leg; Gokul struck him on the head with an iron rod; the others attacked with sticks. Ramdas was taken to the hospital but was declared dead. The police registered Crime No. 100 of 2002 under Sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC. During investigation, weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. After trial, the Sessions Court convicted all accused for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 324 read with 149, and 341 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and various terms. The High Court, while analyzing the evidence in the appeals, examined the testimony of the key prosecution witnesses. PW1, the injured son of the deceased, stated in his evidence about the sequence of events but admitted material omissions in his earlier report and police statement. He conceded that the fact that his brother Baban obstructed the second blow, that Gokul assaulted his father on the head, that Premdas Deotale was in the auto, and that Premdas Bhagat was the driver, were not mentioned in the FIR or statement. The Investigating Officer (PW13) proved these omissions. PW1 also admitted that the fact the accused assaulted himself, his father, mother and brother was not in his report. The Court noted that the spot was dark and surrounded by agricultural fields, and that the witness admitted taking advantage of such spot and darkness, some 15 persons had attacked them. The testimony of PW3, Arvind Shyamrao Alone (brother of the deceased), who claimed to have arrived at the scene in a car, was also scrutinised. He said he saw the assault from a distance and the assailants fled when they saw his car. However, PW1 did not mention PW3’s presence at all. PW3’s account of taking the injured to the hospital and accompanying them to the police station was contradicted by PW1, who stated they first went to the police station and then the hospital. PW3 also failed to name several accused. The Court observed that these inconsistencies and omissions cast serious doubt on the credibility of the witnesses and the prosecution’s ability to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly. The judgment noted the faction-ridden nature of the village and the political background of the deceased’s family. The Court’s analysis primarily focused on the evidentiary value of the testimony in light of the material omissions and the reliability of the chance witness. The final determination on the appeals remains unspecified in the excerpt.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Law Points