Criminal Appeal No.1010 and 1011 of 2008. Case: 1. Nana Keshav Lagad, 2. Balu and Another Vs State of Maharashtra. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No.1010 and 1011 of 2008 |
| Judges | Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 34, 324, 34, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149; Bombay Police Act - Sections 37(a), 135 |
| Judgement Date | July 03, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
-
These two appeals are against the common judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, in Cri.A.No.611 of 2003, dated 16.01.2006.
-
The appellant in Crl.A.No.1010 of 2008 is A4 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.1011 of 2008 are A2 and A3. In all, four accused were prosecuted and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court against the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.191 of 2002, by its judgment dated 21.08.2003.
-
All the accused were convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs.300/- and in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellants stated to have paid the fine amount on 21.08.2003 itself. The High Court having upheld the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants, they have come forward with these appeals. The first accused-Keshav died and the remaining accused are before us.
-
As the genesis of the case of the prosecution goes, all the accused persons, the complainant Santosh Ramchandra Lagad, who is the son of the deceased Ramachandra Lagad, were all residents of the same village, Lagadwadi. They owned and possessed agricultural lands adjacent to each other. There were disputes, as regards the use of way to their respective lands. The deceased Ramachandra Lagad stated to have filed a suit against the appellants at Shrigonda Court for injunction. They also approached other authorities wirh regard to protection of their right of way to go to their agricultural lands. It appears that at one stage they resorted to hunger strike for the redressal of their grievances. At that time, the police interfered and the accused were directed to allow the deceased and his family members, including the complainant to use the old way as an access to their land, till a decision was arrived at in the Civil Court.
-
It was alleged that in spite of such direction by the police, there was violation at the instance of the accused persons. On 04.10.2002, at about 7.00 a.m., when the complainant P.W.4 and his deceased father, were proceeding towards their field for sowing maize seeds, the first accused stated to have obstructed them from proceeding on the disputed way. He also stated to have abused and threatened the complainant and his deceased father. P.W.4 and his father returned back to their house. Thereafter, the deceased went to Shrigonda Court to attend the hearing of the civil case, while the complainant P.W.4 went out looking after his cattle.
-
At about 5.15 p.m., on the same day, after the complainant P.W.4 returned to his house after watering onion crops, his sister came to know from one Bapu Dada Ghadage that the accused persons were waiting at Kolgaon Lagadwadi road for her father, Ramachandra Lagad, to return to his village with an intention to assault him. The complainant was therefore, asked to rush to the spot immediately. The complainant P.W.4, stated to have reached the spot in a bicycle and that according to him, when he was about to reach the spot i.e., from a distance of about 200 meters from the spot, he saw all the four accused persons along with one Ganesh Sambhaji Lagad and Sandeep Sambhaji Lagad, beating his father Ramachandra Lagad, while at the same time abusing him. It is also claimed that P.W.4 himself along with his deceased father, Ramachandra Lagad, was attacked with cycle chain and stone. The accused also stated to have threatened the complainant and his father to face dire consequences if they continue to use the disputed pathway. At that time, one Raju came to the rescue of P.W.4 in his motorcycle, who interfered and separated the complainant from the clutches of the accused. The complainant noted his father having sustained bleeding injuries over his head and other parts of the body, returned back to his village to fetch a jeep taxi, in which he took his father to Shrigonda police station. As directed by the police, P.W.4 took his father to the rural hospital where, the doctors declared him dead. P.W.4 was also examined by the doctor who gave him first-aid treatment and thereafter, P.W.4 lodged a complaint with the police.
-
The complaint was registered as CR.No.249 of 2002, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149 of I.P.C., as well as Section 37(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
-
P.W.16, A.P.I. Rajendra Narhari Padwal conducted the inquest, visited the spot of the incident, collected his blood stained shirt and soil, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused. Based on the admissible portion of the confession statement made by the appellants, cycle chain and stones were seized in the presence of panch witnesses. The clothes of the accused Keshav, which contained blood stains, the clothes of the deceased and the blood mixed soil collected from the spot, the weapons used for the crime and the blood sample, along with the clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical analysis. Charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shrigonda, who committed the case to the Sessions Court.
-
Before the Sessions Court, 16 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution. P.W.1 and P.W.2 who were panch witnesses, turned hostile. P.W.3 was another panch witness to support the recovery of cycle...
To continue reading
Request your trial