Bombay High Court Disposes of Appeals from Conviction and Acquittal in Patnoli Group Clash Murder Case. Conviction Under Sections 302/149 IPC and Acquittals Challenged.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, Alibag, in Sessions Case No.134 of 2009. The accused were tried for offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 504, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, under section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and under sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The trial court held accused nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 guilty of offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to imprisonment for six months under Section 143, one year each under Sections 144, 147 and 148, and life imprisonment with fine under Section 302/149. Accused no.7 was additionally convicted under Section 307/149 and sentenced to life imprisonment. Accused nos.3, 4, 11 and 12 were convicted under Section 324 IPC and released on executing a bond of good behavior for three years with surety. Accused no.9 was acquitted of all charges, and the other accused were acquitted of offences under Sections 325, 326 r/w 149, 504 IPC and provisions of Bombay Police Act. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 5.7.2009 at about 11.30 a.m., the complainant Deepak Patil and his brothers Anil Patil and Manohar Patil were returning to village Patnoli from Panvel by their Safari vehicle. When they reached near the school ground, they saw Haribhau (A-5), Tukaram (A-6), Kashinath (A-8) and Shravan (A-9) sitting by the road. Their children and some other boys were playing cricket. On seeing the complainant, accused no.1 Sujit spat at and abused him. The complainant got down and questioned him, whereupon the other accused rushed towards the complainant and his brothers, joined by others armed with weapons like sticks, iron rods, bats, hockey sticks, and swords. The brothers of the complainant—Prakash, Kishore, Deepak, Pravin, and Vilas—also arrived. It was alleged that accused no.1 gave a sword blow on the head of Anil (the deceased), while others struck him with hockey sticks and rods. The complainant and his brothers were also assaulted before the accused fled. Mahadeo Patil took the injured to Gandhi Hospital, where they were examined by PW28 Dr. Bhushan Jain. The medical evidence revealed multiple injuries, including fractures and head injuries. Anil Patil succumbed to his injuries on 8.7.2009. The post-mortem conducted by PW28 noted a linear fracture of the skull and other internal injuries, with cause of death being head injury. PW29 PSI Prakash Patil learned of the incident, visited the hospital, recorded the FIR of Deepak Patil, and registered Crime No.275/2009 under Sections 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 IPC read with section 37(1)135 of the Bombay Police Act. He conducted the scene of offence panchanama, arrested accused, and seized incriminating materials. On 6.7.2009, PW30 PSI Vijay Kadmane took over investigation, added Section 302 upon the death of Anil, conducted inquest, recovered weapons of offence based on disclosure statements, and sent items to CFSL. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Panvel, and the case was committed to Sessions. Accused no.10 Vilas Patil also lodged a report on 5.7.2009 alleging that the complainant's group assaulted them, indicating a cross-case. The State filed Criminal Appeal No.82/2014 seeking enhancement of sentence against accused 3,4,11,12, and Criminal Appeal No.1330/2013 challenging acquittals. The first informant Deepak Patil filed Criminal Appeal No.1141/2013 also against acquittals. The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeals 667/2013 and 668/2013 challenging their conviction and sentence. All appeals were heard together by the High Court. The judgment was reserved on April 11, 2016 and pronounced on July 25, 2016. The provided excerpt does not include the court's findings and final decision on the appeals.

Issue of Consideration

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 667 OF 2013

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 79

Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2013 along with Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 1330 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 1141 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2014

2016-07-25

Smt. V.K. Tahilramani & Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ.

Mr. Shashank Manohar i/b. Mr. Nitin Sejpal & Mrs. Pooja Sejpal for Appellants in Cr.A.667/2013; Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. Nitin Sejpal & Mrs. Pooja Sejpal for Appellants in Cr.A.668/2013; Mr. S.K. Shinde, PP for State in Cr.A.667/2013 and 668/2013; Mr. Sandeep Shinde, APP for State in Cr.A.1330/2013 and 82/2014; Mr. Nitin Sejpal & Mrs. Pooja Sejpal for Respondents in State appeals

Sujit Haribhau Patil, Tukaram Rama Patil, Kashinath Rama Patil, Vilas Shravan Patil (Cr.A.667/2013); Ganesh @ Yogesh Kashinath Patil, Haribhau Rama Patil, Suhas Shravan Patil (Cr.A.668/2013); The State of Maharashtra (Cr.A.1330/2013 and 82/2014); Deepak Parshuram Patil (Cr.A.1141/2013)

The State of Maharashtra (in Cr.A.667/2013, 668/2013); Sujit Patil and others (in State appeals); Sujit Patil and others (in Cr.A.1141/2013)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence, and State appeals against acquittal and for enhancement.

Remedy Sought

Accused seek acquittal; State seeks enhancement of sentence for accused 3,4,11,12 and reversal of acquittals; first informant seeks reversal of acquittals.

Filing Reason

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No.134/2009.

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted accused 1,2,5,6,7,8,10 under sections 143,144,147,148,302 r/w 149 IPC; accused 7 also under 307/149; convicted accused 3,4,11,12 under 324 IPC and released on bond; acquitted accused 9 and partially acquitted other accused.

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC is sustainable. Whether the acquittal of certain accused and for certain offences is justified. Whether the sentence imposed on accused 3,4,11,12 should be enhanced.

Judgment Excerpts

By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Judge has held the accused nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 guilty of offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 5.7.2009 at about 11.30 a.m the complainant Deepak Patil and his brothers Anil Patil and Manohar Patil were returning to village Patnoli from Panvel by their Safari Vehicle. It is alleged that the accused no.1 gave a blow of sword on the head of Anil (the deceased) while the other accused gave blows by hockey sticks, rod etc on his head.

Procedural History

On 5.7.2009, FIR No.275/2009 registered by PSI Prakash Patil under sections 307,143,144,147,148,149 IPC r/w 37(1)135 Bombay Police Act. Investigation conducted; accused arrested; on death of Anil on 8.7.2009, section 302 IPC added. Charge sheet filed. Trial court convicted some accused and acquitted others. Appeals filed before High Court; heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 504, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149
  • Bombay Police Act, 1951: 37(1), 135
  • Indian Arms Act, 1959: 4, 25
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Appeals from Conviction and Acquittal in Patnoli Group Clash Murder Case. Conviction Under Sections 302/149 IPC and Acquittals Challenged.
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Landowner's Writ Petition Against De-occupation Notice Under Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as Vexatious Litigation. Second Revision Under Section 80-A of the Act Held Not Maintainable Against De-occupation...