http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SUKHDEO, VINAYAK & OTHERSTUKA RAM & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/03/1997

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 1989                             WITH                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 1990                       J U D G M E N T S.P. KURDUKAR, J.      A small  village called  Anterweli in  Tehsil Gangakhed Distt. Parbhani on June 4, 1982 at about 2.00 p.m. witnessed the gruesome murders of three brothers namely, Hari, Govinda & Limbaji,  sons of   Tuljiram  Ghaobale, and Narayan son of Bapu Tayade  who happened  to be their nephew (sister’s son) at the hands of a riotous mob of nearly forty Wanjari people residing in  the same village. In the said rioting incident, apart from  four deaths,  as many  as six  persons,  namely, Sopan (PW  2), Kondabai  (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Kundlik  (PW 21) and Vithal (PW 22)- the complainant has sustained serious injuries. The deceased persons and injured witnesses belonged  to Budh  community whereas  most of  the accused  persons   numbering  forty   belonged  to   Wanjari community. In  substance, the  members of  Wanjari community has attacked the members of Budha community. 2.   The  members   of  the  Wanjari  community  of  village Anterweli  firmly   believed  that   the  members  of  Budha community were  involved in  committing thefts and dacoities in  the   neighbouring  villages   thereby  causing   a  bad reputation to the residents of the said village. The members of the  Budha community were earning their livelihood either as agricultural  labourers or  taking the  lands of  Wanjari people on  lease. Some  members of  the Budha community were also working  as Watandar Ramoshis (night watchmen). In view of the  alleged notoriety  of the  Harijan  community  as  a whole, the  Wanjari community  decided  not  to  engage  the services of  the former  either as agricultural labourers or as  a   tenants  of   their  lands.  Rift  between  the  two communities further  widened because  of constant bickerings between them. The Harijan community people having found that their living  in the  said village  has rendered  miserable, they decided  to migrate  to the village Mankhed in Ahmedpur taluka, Distt.  Latur and  accordingly had  shifted to  that village about  one and  a half  years before the incident in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

question took place. 3.   It is  the prosecution case that 3/4 days prior to June 4, 1982,  the three  brothers (since deceased), their nephew Narayan (since  deceased) alongwith their family members and friends came  to  their  village  Anterwali  to  attend  the marriage of  their relation  which was to take  place in the said village  and also  to settle  few financial commitments that deceased  Govinda has made to Gyanik (A-8). During that period, Babu  son of  Rama Jayebhaye  belonging  to  Harijan community was being taken to police station at Gangakhed for having abused Sopan Mukada, the Wanjari, under the influence of liquor.  Govinda who was then present negotiated with A-8 in the  presence of Prabhu (A-5), Shivaji (A-7). Arun (A-22) and Udhav (A-39) by  requesting him to let Babu be freed and took  responsibility   to  pay   Rs.  1500/-   by   way   of compensation. This amount was, however, not paid to A-8 till the date  of incident.  This incident  had added  to further severe bickerings between them and Wanjari people took it as a serious  insult. In  order to  patch up  the  differences, Govinda (since  deceased) and  A-8 and  his associates had a meeting at  the house of Sita Ram Patil at Shelmoha which is about 2  km away from village Anterweli. It was then decided that Govinda would pay the amount to A-8 and would not enter the village  Anterweli. In view of this compromise. Govinda, his brothers,  Narayan and other family members shifted to a place adjacent  to  village  Anterweli  and  started  living there. The marriage of the relative of Govinda took place on Ist June, 1982 without any disturbance. 4.   The Wanjari  people did not approve the stay of Govinda and others  on the  outskirts of  village Anterweli and this has lead  to the incident in question. It is the prosecution case that a mod of as many as forty persons belonging to the Wanjari community,  of which,  two were  juvenile  offenders went to  the basti  of Govinda. The juvenile offender Charnu (A-4) was  the main  cause for  the incident in question. On June 3,  1982, Manika  (PW 15) sensing some trouble returned to his  house and  cautioned his  brothers Govinda, Hari and Limba that  they should  be more  vigilant in future. It was then alleged  by the  prosecution that  on June  4, 1982  at about 7.00  a.m., an  incident over  the prize  money of Rs. 20/- took  place. Phul  Chand (PW  8) was  alleged  to  have retained the  said prize money. It was payable to Laxman (A- 2) and  , therefore, he had gone to the house of Govinda and Manika (PW  15 requesting  them to  ask Phul Chand (PW 8) to pay the  said prize money to him (A-21). Manika (PW 15) paid the said  money to  A-21 on  behalf of Phul Chand (PW 8) and the said dispute was resolved. 5.   Coming to  the main  incident of rioting, murders etc., it was alleged by the prosecution that all the forty accused persons named in the First Information Report (Ex. 114) came to the  house of Manika (PW 15) shouting slogans and hurling abuses on  him and  his inmates.  These accused persons were armed  with   axes  and   sticks.  Gyanik   (A-8),  however, intervened  and   thereafter  they  all  returned  to  their village. Sensing  more trouble  from the  Wanjari community, Govinda and  his brothers  became more  conscious and  asked Sopan (PW  2) and  their family members to remain inside the house. As expected, all the forty accused named in FIR armed with deadly  weapons came to the house of Manika (PW 15). As soon as they reached there, a signal was given by Manika  to Hari, Govinda,  Limbaji and  Narayan (since deceased) to run away from  the house. When they were running alongwith their wives towards  the hill  side known  as  KUMBHARMATICHA  MAL situated at a distance of two to three furlongs, the riotous mob chased  them and  caused brutal  attack on Hari, Govinda

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

and Limba  by means  of axes, sticks and stones, as a result of which,  they died  on the  spot. Narayan  who  had  taken refuge in  the house  of one  Rama son of Dhudhaji was taken out of  that house  and when  he was  running away,  he  was mercilessly hacked  to death  by the accused persons. During the said  assault, it  is alleged  by the  prosecution  that Sopan (PW  2), Kondabai  (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8) and Manika (PW 15) were assaulted with the sticks causing injuries to  them. Limba  who has sustained serious bleeding injuries was  crying for  water but,  however,  Arun  (A-22) instead of  giving water passed his urine in his mouth. This shows how  the ghastly persons on the family of Govinda, his brothers and  nephew who  succumbed to their injuries on the spot itself. 6.   Ramesh (PW  1) and  Manika (PW  15) who  had  seen  the entire  incident,  took  to  their  heels  to  inform  their relatives who  were staying  at  Dharmapuri,  Ambajogai  and Parali. They  then went  to Gangakhed  police station  where they come  to know  that police had already left for village Anterweli. Manika  (PW 15 alongwith Ambadas then went to the bungalow of  S.P., Parbhani  reached  village  Anterweli  on Saturday, the  June 5,  1982 at  about 9.00 a.m. Limbajirao, Police Patil  of the  village Anterweli  had  forwarded  his report on  June 4,  1982 at  about 4.30  p.m. to  the police station at Gangakhed. PSI Kalve (PW 23), who reached village Anterweli during  the night of June 4/5, 1982, commenced the investigation. In  the meantime,  Kedari (PW 24). D.S.P. who reached the place of occurrence took over the investigation. After holding  the inquest panchanamas on the dead bodies of Govinda, Hari,  Limbaji and Narayan, Dr. Ramgopal Biyani (PW 3) and  Dr. Uttam  Ramarao Gujarati (PW 4) were requested to come to  village Anterweli  for holding  the autopsy  on the dead bodies in the village itself. After completing the post mortem examination  on  the  four  dead  bodies,  they  were allowed to  be cremated  in the  evening of June 5, 1982. On conclusion of  the investigation,  a charge sheet came to be filed against  forty accused persons for offences punishable under Section  147, 148,  452, 302,  307, 324,  506 part II, 323, 452/149, 302/149, Code. Charnu (A-4) who was a juvenile offender, his  trial was  separated and was entrusted to the juvenile court. 7.   The appellants  and  other  acquitted  accused  persons denied the allegations levelled against them as according to them, they  have been  falsely  implicated  in  the  present crime. According  to them,  the deceased  and his  community people were  involved in several theft and dacoity cases and because of  this,  they  bore  grudge  against  the  accused persons. On may occasions, they were caught red handed while committing the  theft/dacoity and  were handed  over to  the police. They pleaded that they are innocent and committed no offence. They pleaded that they be acquitted. 8.   The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 24  witnesses, of  whom,  more  than  a  dozen  witnesses including the  six injured  eve witnesses were the witnesses of facts.  In addition  to these  witnesses, the prosecution also examined  Dr. Ramgopal  Biyani (PW  3)  and  Dr.  Uttam Ramrao Gujarati  (PW 4) to prove the post mortem examination reports as well as the injury certificates issued to various injured witnesses. Various panchnamas were also sought to be proved through  panch witnesses.  The accused,  however, did not lead any evidence. 9.   The learned  Addl. Sessions  Judge on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order dated August  24, 1983  convicted Sukhdeo (A-1), Vinayak (A- 3), Prabhu (A-5), Gyanik (A-8), Shriram (A-9), Bhima (A-10),

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Arun (A-22)  and Ashok  (A-38) for offences punishable under Section 147,  452 read  with Section  149 IPC, under Section 323 read  with Section  149 IPC  and under  Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of  them to  suffer imprisonment for life in addition to various other  terms of  sentences on  other counts. All the substantive sentences  were ordered to run concurrently. The remaining accused  persons were,  however, acquitted  of all the charges. 10.  Feeling   aggrieved  by   the  judgment  and  order  of convictions and  sentences, the  convicted  accused  persons preferred Criminal  Appeal No.133  of 1983 whereas the State of Maharashtra  preferred Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1983 to Bombay High  Court bench  at Aurangabad. the High Court vide its judgment  and order  dated 28th  April,  1988  dismissed Criminal Appeal  No. 133  of 1983  filed  by  the  convicted accused  persons   and  affirmed   their   convictions   and sentences. Criminal  Appeal No.  177 of  1983 filed  by  the State of  Maharashtra against  the  acquittal  of  remaining accused persons  was  partly  allowed  and  the  High  Court convicted Tuka  Ram (A-2),  Gangadhar (A-6),  Shivaji (A-7), Atma Ram (A-11), Suryabhan (A-12), Sapan (A-13), Kondiba (A- 14), Sampati  (A-18), Waman  (A-27) and Udhav (A-39) for the offences punishable  under Sections  147, 148, 452 read with Section 149  IPC as  also under Sections 323/149, 302/149 of the Indian  Penal Code  and sentenced  each one  of them  to suffer imprisonment for life and other terms of sentences on other counts.  The State appeal, filed against the acquittal of Shripati  (A-28) and  Kundlik (A-35) came to be dismissed and  their   acquittal  was   confirmed.  Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid judgment  and order  of convictions  and sentences passed by the High Court in criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1983, the appellants/accused  by Special Leave have filed Criminal Appeal  Nos.  31  and  235  of  1989,  other  batch  of  the appellants/accused persons  whose acquittal was set aside by the High  Court and  came to  be convicted  have  filed  the Criminal Appeal  No. 53  of 1990  in this  Court. Since  all these appeals  arise out  of a common judgment passed by the High Court, they are being disposed of by this judgment. 11.  The appellants  before us  can be  conveniently grouped into  two  categories  (1)  the  appellants  who  have  been convicted by  the trial  court for various offence and their convictions and sentences were upheld by the High Court, (2) the appellants who have been acquitted of all the charges by the trial  court but  their acquittal  had been set aside by the High Court and came to be convicted. The first  category of  appellants consists of Sukdeo (A-1), Vinayak (A-3),  Prabhu (A-5),  Gyanik (A-8),  Shriram (A-9), Bhima (A-10),  Arun (A-22)  and  Ashok  (A-38).  The  second category  consists  of  Tuka  Ram  (A-2),  Gangadhar  (A-6), Shivaji (A-7),  Atmaram (A-11), Surya Bhan (A-12), Sapan (A- 13), Kondiba  (A-14), Sampati (A-18), Waman (A-27) and Udhav (A-39). All these appellants hereinafter will be referred to in the  same order  as they  were arraigned before the trial Court. We  have heard  learned counsel  for the  parties and also perused  the judgments  of the learned courts below and the materials on record. 12.  It is  not and   cannot  be disputed that Hari Govinda, Limba and Narayan met with homicidal deaths due to murderous assault with  deadly weapon  on them  in  an  incident  that occurred on June 4, 1982. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to  the medical  evidence in this behalf in detail and suffice it  to briefly  indicate the  injuries sustained  by them during  the incident in question. The High Court in its judgment in  paragraphs 13,  14, 15  and 16  has set  out in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

details the injuries sustained by the four victims and which were supported  by the  medical evidence  of Dr.  Ram  Gopal Biyani (PW  3) and  Dr. Uttam  Ramrao Gujarati  (PW 4).  Dr. Ramgopal Biyani (PW 3) conducted the post mortem examination (Ex. 37) on the dead body of Govinda and found as may as ten incised injuries  of various  dimensions in  addition to the two  wheel  mark  injuries,  multiple  small  abrasions  and contusions with abrasions over the left thigh.      Dr. Ramgopal Biyani (PW-3) held post mortem examination on the dead body of Limba and found as many as nine external injuries in  his post  mortem examination report (Ex.38), of which, three  were incised  wounds, one  lacerated wound and two contusions  with abrasions  and rest  were bruises.  Dr. Uttam Ramrao  gujarati (PW  4) has  held the  autopsy on the dead body  of Hari  (Ex. 47)  and found as many as seventeen external injuries  including nine  incised wounds.  The post mortem examination  on the  dead body  of Narayan  was  also conducted by  Dr. Uttam  Ramrao Gujarati  (PW 4) who noticed many external  injuries including  five incised  wounds. His post mortem  examination report  is  at  Ex.  48.  Both  the doctors testified  in court that injuries sustained by these deceased persons  were ante mortem and incised wounds caused to them  were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  the cause of death in respect of each deceased person was  stated to be shock due to haemorrhage  resulting from the  cutting of  blood vessels  in the bodies. The post mortem examination  reports of  the  four  deceased  persons produced at  Ex. 37,  Ex. 38   Ex.  47 and  Ex. 48 were duly proved by   Dr.  Biyani (PW  3) and  Dr. Gujarati (PW 4). In view of  this medical  evidence, we  see  no  hesitation  in affirming the  findings recorded  by the  courts below  that four deceased persons met with homicidal deaths. 13.  The backdrop of the incident in question was the belief entertained by  the residents of village Anterweli belonging to Wanjari  community that  the residents of Budha community of the  said village  were involved in several dacoities and thefts bringing  bad name  to the  residents of  the village Anterweli.  That   belief  further  perpetuated  by  causing harassment to  the people of Budha community so much so that their  Gawki,   Ramoshi  and   employments  as  agricultural labourers  were   discontinued  by  the  Wanjari  community. Resultantly, one  and a half year back, some of the families of Harijans  shifted to  far  off  villages  to  earn  their livelihood. It  is in  this background,  Govinda, Limba  and Hari had  shifted to that village Mankhed in Ahmedpur taluka but  because   of  some  financial  commitments  and  social obligations, these  four persons  had come  back to  village Anterweli after  a period  of one and a half years. Few days prior to  the incident,  all the  four persons  had come  to village Anterweli  to join  the marriage  function of  their close relative  which took place on June 1, 1982 without any hindrance. During  these  three  to  four  days,  two  major incidents took  place; one  as regards the return of debt by one of  the Harijans to Gyanik (A-8) for which Govinda stood guarantor and  in default  agreed to  pay the  said  amount; second, over  the prize  money of  Rs. 20/-  which was to be paid to  Laxman (A-21)  was infact paid by Manika (PW 15) on behalf of  Phul Chand  (PW 8)  to  Laxman  (A-21).  Govinda, however, could  not pay  Rs. 1500/-  and  this  had  further aggravated  the   strained   relations   between   the   two communities. It is in this background, we may now proceed to consider the evidence of various eye witnesses including the injured witnesses. 14.  The incident  in question  was reported  to the  police station at  Gangakhed vide the First Information Report (Ex.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

114) lodged  by Limbajirao,  Police Patil  of  the  village. Manika (PW  15) is  an eye  witness who testified as to what happened on  June  4,  1982  as  also  various  developments preceding the  incident in  question. He   stated  that  the members of  the family  of the deceased and their associates were sitting in his house whereas his son Vishnu was made to sit on  the terrace  to keep  a vigil. At about 2.00 p.m., a riotous mob consisting of about forty persons (of which, the appellants were  the members)  came to  his house armed with deadly weapons  like axes,  sticks and started giving slogan and abusing  the Harijan  community and  in  particular  the victims family.  Vishnu  who  was  sitting  on  the  terrace informed him  (Manika) that  the riotous mob was approaching his house  and the  victims and  their family members should run away  for their safety. Accordingly, the victims started running but the members of the riotous mob chases and caught them near  the hill  known as  Kumbharmaticha Mal.  All  the appellants thereafter  caused assault  on Govinda,  Hari and Limba by  means of axes, sticks and stones. The wives of the victims were  following them  and requested  not to kill but according to  this witness,  the appellants  did not pay any heed and  were saying  that they should be finished forever. During this  assault,  Hari,  Govinda  and  Limba  sustained incised and  lacerated wounds  and died  on the spot. Manika (PW 15)  further stated that Narayan who had taken refuge in the house  of Rama   Dhudhaji  was dragged  out of  the said house and  was taken  to the  place known as Mariay Platform and then   mercilessly  hacked to death by the members of an unlawful assembly.  Narayan also  died  instantaneously.  He further stated that during the said assault, the riotous mob assaulted the witnesses causing them injuries and thereafter they fled  away. Manika  (PW 15) further deposed that during the said  incident, he  also  sustained  injuries  alongwith other persons  namely, Sopan  (PW 2),  Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7),  Phul Chand  (PW 8),  Kundlik (PW 21) and Vithal (PW 22). This  is the substratum on which the entire prosecution case rested.  This is  the substratum  on which  the  entire prosecution case  rested. This witness was cross examined at a great  length but,  however, we  do not  see any  material brought  out   during  the   cross-examination  which  could discredit his  testimony. It also needs to be mentioned that the incident  took place  in the day time at about 2.00 p.m. on June 4, 1982. All the appellants were personally known to this witness  since they  are  the  residents  of  the  same village and  , therefore,  mistaken identity of any of these appellants was  out of  question. The  injuries sustained by these three deceased persons as reflected in the post mortem examination reports  clearly bore  out how the three victims were mercilessly  beaten by the appellants and other members of the  riotous mob.  The courts  below in  our opinion have rightly accepted the evidence of Manika as trustworthy. 15.  We may  now consider  the complicity  of Sukhdeo (A-1), Vinayak (A-3),  Prabhu (A-5),  Gyanik (A-8),  Bhima  (A-10), Madhav (A-20)  and Ashok  (A-38) in  the present  crime. The prosecution examined  as   many as 22 witnesses of facts who testified the  role attributed  to these  appellants. It was urged on  behalf of  the   appellants that most of these eye witnesses have  made improvements in their evidence in court by implicating  as many  accused persons  asa possible  and, therefore, the  evidence of  such witnesses be discarded. It was  further  contended  that  no  independent  witness  was examined by  the prosecution  as witness  of  fact  and  the witnesses who  have deposed against the appellants belong to the Harijan  community and  in view  of the prosecution case that there  existed an  enmity between  the two  groups,  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

would be unsafe to sustain the convictions on such evidence. 16.  As regards  the first  contentions, we see no substance because the  incident took place in the locality where these Harijans were  residing and  the said place was situated few furlongs away  from the village abadi. Moreover, the Wanjari community as  a  united  front  had  caused  the  attack  on Harijans and,  therefore, it  would be futile to expect that any person  from the  village would  support  the  cause  of Harijans. All  these  witnesses  of  facts  assuming  to  be closely related  to the  deceased  persons,  their  evidence cannot be  discarded on  that score.  All that  is needed in such a  case is  that the court must scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses with greater caution. 17.  Coming to the second contention that eye witnesses have improved the  prosecution story  in court  and be branded as untrustworthy of  credence, we  are unable  to  accept  this criticism.  We  were  taken  through  the  evidence  of  eye witnesses and we are inclined to accept the evidence of such of the  eye witnesses whose evidence of eye witnesses and we are inclined  to accept  the evidence  of such  of  the  eye witnesses  whose   evidence  is   free  from  omissions  and contradictions. Following  this rule,  we may scrutinize the evidence led  by  the  prosecution  against  Sukhdeo  (A-1), Vinayak (A-3),  Prabhu (A-5),  gyanik (A-8),  Shriram (A-9), Bhima (A-10),  Arun (A-22)  and Ashok (A-38). Ramesh (PW 1), Kondabai (PW  6), Bapu  (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8) and Manika (PW  15)   who  in    unmistakable  terms  referred  to  the participation of  A-3 in the present crime as a member of an unlawful assembly.  So is  the evidence  of ramesh  (PW  1), Sopan (PW  2), Bapu  (PW 7),  Phul Chand  (PW 8), Manika (PW 15), Mahananda (PW 17), Bainabai (PW 18) and Padmin (PW 20). As against  A-8, Ramesh  (PW 1),  Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16)  and Bainabai  (PW 18)  have consistently deposed as regards his role. In respect of A-9, the consistent evidence was comprised of Ramesh (PW 1), Bapu (PW 7), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16, Mahananda (PW 17) and Bainabai (PW 18). The participation of A-10 in the present crime was deposed to be Ramesh (PW 1), Bapu (PW 7), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16) and Mahananda  (PW 17).  The   involvement of  A-22 being  a member of  an unlawful assembly and his participation in the ghastly murders  was consisted of Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu  (PW 7),  Phul Chand  (PW 8),  Mahananda (PW 17 and Bainabai (PW 18). The role attributed to A-38 in the present crime was deposed to by Ramesh (PW 1), Bapu (PW 7), Kalavati (PW 16) and Bainabai (PW 18). We have carefully gone through the evidence  of the  above witnesses  of facts  and we  are satisfied that  the findings of facts recorded by the courts below as  regards these  appellants being the members of the unlawful assembly  sharing a  common object and in pursuance thereof causing assault on four victims by axes, sticks etc. and  thereby   committing  their   murder  suffer   from  no infirmity. Further more, the evidence of those eye witnesses find corroboration  from the medical evidence vis- a-vis the injuries on  the four  deceased persons and the weapons used by them.  In addition  to this evidence, there is also other materials on  record in  the form  of  recovery  of  certain incriminating articles  through seizure  panchnamas and  the evidence of panch witnesses thereof. The trial court as well as the  High Court  in their  well reasoned  judgments  have discussed the  oral and  documentary evidence on record very carefully and we are in agreement with the said appreciation of evidence  and findings  recorded by  them.  There  is  no substance in  the Criminal  Appeal No. 31 of 1989 and 235 of 1989 filed on behalf of the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

18.  That brings  us to  the case of the other set convicted appellants, namely, Tuka Ram (A-2), Gangadhar (A-6), Shivaji (A-7),  Atmaram  (A-11),  Suryabhan  (A-12),  Sapan  (A-13), Kondiba (A-14),  Sampati (A-18),  Waman (A-27) and Udhav (A- 39) who were acquitted by the trial court of all the charges but their order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court and came  to be  convicted for the offences punishable under Section   147, 148,  452/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and  sentenced each one  of them to suffer imprisonment for life  and other  various terms of sentences. After going through the  evidence and other materials on record, we find that their  convictions and  sentences  do    call  for  any interference. While  assailing the  conviction of  all these appellants, learned counsel urged that the High Court was in error in  setting aside  the order  of acquittal  passed  in their favour.  The reasons  for acquittal  recorded  by  the trial court  were based  on proper  appreciation of evidence and the  High Court  was totally  unjustified  in  taking  a different view.  At the  most, it  would be  a case  of  two possible view  but that by itself could not be ground to set aside the order of acquittal. the High Court, therefore, had committed an  error while  interfering  with  the  order  of acquittal. In  order to  find out the sustainability of this contention,  we  have  gone  through  the  evidence  of  the witnesses of facts very carefully. It may also be noted that the statements of many witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure. These witnesses were searchingly cross-examined  by the defence, yet no  material could be  brought out on record to discredit their evidence. The evidence which is consistent and free from omissions and contradictions against the appellants is as under:-      The complicity  of A-2 in the present crime was deposed to by  Ramesh (PW  1), Bainabai  (PW 18), Padmin (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW  21). As  against A-7, the evidence of Sopan (PW 2), Manika  (PW 15),  Kalavati (PW  16), Padmin  (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW  21) is  consistent. As  against Atmaram (A-11), the evidence  of Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Manika (PW 15) and Kalavati (PW 16) is unblemished. As far as participation of A-6 is concerned, Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16), Mahananda (PW 17), Padmin (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW  21) have consistently deposed about his role in the present  crime. The complicity of A-12 was deposed to by Sopan (PW  2), Kalavati  (PW 16), Padmin (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW 21).  The role of A-13 was again consistently deposed to by  Ramesh  (PW  1),  Manika  (PW  15),  Kalavati  (PW  16), Mahananda (PW  17), Bainabai  (PW 18),  Padmin (PW  20)  and Kundlik (PW  21). Against  A-14, Sopan (PW 2), Mahananda (PW 17) and  Padmin (PW  20) have  given unimpeachable evidence. The involvement  of A-18  in the present crime was testified by Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Manika (PW 15) and Mahananda (PW 17).  The role  attributed to  A-27 was  deposed  to  by Ramesh (PW  1), Manika  (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16), Mahananda (PW 17),  Bainabai (PW  18), Padmin  (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW 21). The  participation of  A-39 in  the present  crime  was consistently testified  by Ramesh  (PW  1),  Sopan  (PW  2), Manika  (PW  15),  Kalavati  (PW  16),  Mahananda  (PW  17), Bainabai (PW  18), Padmin  (PW 20)  and Kundlik (PW 21). The High Court  in its  judgment has  discussed the  evidence of these prosecution  witnesses very  carefully  while  setting aside their  acquittal and convicting them for the aforesaid offences. We  are taken  through the  evidence of  these eye witnesses and we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court while convicting these appellants. 19.  We are  of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence of  these witnesses,  it could not be said that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

order  of   acquittal  passed   by  the   trial  court   was sustainable. The  findings of  quilt recorded  by  the  High Court is  based on  correct appreciation  of the evidence of these witnesses  and we find no infirmity in these findings. There is  no substance in the Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1990 filed by the appellants. 20.  For     the  foregoing   conclusions,  we  are  of  the considered opinion  that there  is no  substance in Criminal Appeal Nos.  31 &  235 of 1989 and Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1990 and  the same are dismissed. The appellants, if on bail shall  surrender   to  their  bailbonds  to  serve  out  the remainder of their respective sentences.