Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to a criminal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 18.05.1999 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1995. The trial court had acquitted all four respondents (original accused) of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case was that on 07.04.1995, at about 1:00 p.m., near Khairi Dam in village Waki, Taluka Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar, a dispute arose between the complainant Ajinath Baban Kolekar, his brother Navnath, and their father Baban Kolekar on one side, and the four accused (who are cousins of the complainant) on the other, over the installation of an electric motor and the sharing of expenses for an electric pole and wire. It was alleged that the accused demanded payment of their share of expenses before allowing the motor installation. When the complainant offered to pay within a day or two, accused No. 1 Ankush abused them and threw a stone, hitting the complainant on the shoulder. Accused No. 2 Shivaji threw a stone at Navnath, and accused No. 4 Dattatray assaulted Navnath with a chain. Navnath cried out and ran. The deceased, Baban, came to rescue them, and accused No. 3 Mahadeo hit a stone on his head, causing him to fall unconscious with bleeding. The injured was later found dead. The accused fled. The FIR was lodged at Jamkhed Police Station, crime No. 41/1995 was registered, and investigation ensued. Post-mortem revealed death was due to head injury. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. The State appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 3 Mahadeo Kolekar died on 09.03.2015, and the appeal was abated against him. The High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 09.06.2017, and pronounced the judgment on 21.07.2017. The excerpt of the judgment provided does not contain the Court's analysis or final decision; hence, the same are not summarized.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents-accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial court was valid and warranted interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 49
Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1999
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
Mr. S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for appellant/State; Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. V.R. Dhorde for respondents
1. Ankush Rangnath Kolekar, 2. Shivaji Rangnath Kolekar, 3. Mahadeo Rangnath Kolekar (Appeal abated), 4. Dattatraya Rangnath Kolekar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by State against acquittal
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of acquittal and conviction of respondents under Sections 302, 324, 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
Filing Reason
State aggrieved by trial court's judgment acquitting the accused
Previous Decisions
Sessions Case No. 191 of 1995 decided by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 18.05.1999 acquitting all four accused
Issues
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504 read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or based on improper appreciation of evidence.
Whether the appeal against acquittal deserves to be allowed.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused as the prosecution had established the incident and the death of the deceased due to stone-throwing by accused No.3.
The respondents contended that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; that the deceased died due to an accidental fall as his dhoti got entangled; that accused Nos. 2 and 3 acted in self-defence; and accused Nos. 1 and 4 were falsely implicated and not present at the spot.
Judgment Excerpts
Accused No.1 Ankush said that he incurred the expenses of bringing the electric pole and wire from Jamkhed and that said expenses should be given first and then motor should be installed, otherwise they would not allow the informant to install the motor.
Accused No.2 Shivaji and Accused No.3 Mahadeo Kolekar in their written say Exh. 42 amd 43 filed at the time of statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stated that... the deceased Baban was grazing the cattle. On hearing the shouts of the quarrel he came running by the road of small pieces and he was fallen as his Dhoti was entangled in his leg and he fell on the head and sustained injury. Accused No.1 Ankush and accused No.4 Dattatray were not present at the spot of incident and they have been falsely involved in the case.
Procedural History
The trial in Sessions Case No. 191 of 1995 concluded with the judgment dated 18.05.1999 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, acquitting all four accused. The State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved, filed the present appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.3 Mahadeo Rangnath Kolekar died on 09.03.2015, and the appeal was abated against him. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 09.06.2017, and pronounced on 21.07.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324, 504, 34
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 378(1), 313
