Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.

Decided On : Oct-20-2011

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 4(25',
			(int) 1 => 'Indian Arms Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 149',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 149 IPC',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 149 IPC',
			(int) 5 => 'Article No.12,19',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 302 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 304 1st',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 304',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => 'ten',
			(int) 2 => '2',
			(int) 3 => '3.',
			(int) 4 => '341',
			(int) 5 => '323',
			(int) 6 => '504',
			(int) 7 => '506',
			(int) 8 => '324',
			(int) 9 => '147',
			(int) 10 => '148',
			(int) 11 => '149',
			(int) 12 => '4',
			(int) 13 => '5',
			(int) 14 => '6',
			(int) 15 => '1',
			(int) 16 => 'four',
			(int) 17 => '9',
			(int) 18 => '2',
			(int) 19 => '72',
			(int) 20 => '118',
			(int) 21 => '3',
			(int) 22 => '10',
			(int) 23 => '439',
			(int) 24 => '4',
			(int) 25 => '5',
			(int) 26 => '5',
			(int) 27 => '181',
			(int) 28 => '6',
			(int) 29 => '254',
			(int) 30 => 'at least five',
			(int) 31 => '8)',
			(int) 32 => 'one',
			(int) 33 => '8',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => 'five',
			(int) 36 => '2)(a',
			(int) 37 => '3',
			(int) 38 => '9',
			(int) 39 => '18',
			(int) 40 => '8',
			(int) 41 => '4',
			(int) 42 => '10',
			(int) 43 => '11',
			(int) 44 => '1',
			(int) 45 => '12',
			(int) 46 => '26',
			(int) 47 => '13',
			(int) 48 => '1',
			(int) 49 => '719',
			(int) 50 => 'no.737',
			(int) 51 => '15',
			(int) 52 => '16',
			(int) 53 => '577',
			(int) 54 => '1',
			(int) 55 => '2.',
			(int) 56 => '2',
			(int) 57 => '1 1/2',
			(int) 58 => '3.',
			(int) 59 => '4.',
			(int) 60 => '1 1/2',
			(int) 61 => '5',
			(int) 62 => '6.',
			(int) 63 => '8.',
			(int) 64 => '2',
			(int) 65 => '2',
			(int) 66 => '577',
			(int) 67 => '17',
			(int) 68 => 'No.1',
			(int) 69 => '7',
			(int) 70 => 'No.2',
			(int) 71 => '4',
			(int) 72 => 'No.3',
			(int) 73 => 'No.4',
			(int) 74 => '578',
			(int) 75 => '18',
			(int) 76 => '06',
			(int) 77 => '7',
			(int) 78 => '6',
			(int) 79 => '07',
			(int) 80 => '7',
			(int) 81 => '6',
			(int) 82 => '4',
			(int) 83 => '19',
			(int) 84 => '20',
			(int) 85 => 'No.4',
			(int) 86 => '22',
			(int) 87 => '15 to 20',
			(int) 88 => '541',
			(int) 89 => '23',
			(int) 90 => 'No.4',
			(int) 91 => '1',
			(int) 92 => '2',
			(int) 93 => '4',
			(int) 94 => '5',
			(int) 95 => '6',
			(int) 96 => '8)',
			(int) 97 => '24',
			(int) 98 => '15 to 20',
			(int) 99 => 'three',
			(int) 100 => '555',
			(int) 101 => '556',
			(int) 102 => '25',
			(int) 103 => '4',
			(int) 104 => '26',
			(int) 105 => '1',
			(int) 106 => 'No.2',
			(int) 107 => 'No.8',
			(int) 108 => 'ten',
			(int) 109 => '27',
			(int) 110 => 'No.8',
			(int) 111 => '28',
			(int) 112 => '30 to 35',
			(int) 113 => '29',
			(int) 114 => '30',
			(int) 115 => '1',
			(int) 116 => 'No.2',
			(int) 117 => '31',
			(int) 118 => '32',
			(int) 119 => '33',
			(int) 120 => '34',
			(int) 121 => '37.',
			(int) 122 => 'two',
			(int) 123 => '38',
			(int) 124 => '601',
			(int) 125 => '619',
			(int) 126 => '627',
			(int) 127 => '5',
			(int) 128 => '39',
			(int) 129 => '10',
			(int) 130 => '10',
			(int) 131 => '41',
			(int) 132 => '43.',
			(int) 133 => 'thousand'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Court of Additional Sessions',
			(int) 1 => 'IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 3 => 'PW No.17',
			(int) 4 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 5 => 'a Police Constable',
			(int) 6 => 'AIR 1963',
			(int) 7 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'AIR 1963',
			(int) 10 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 11 => 'the Privy Council',
			(int) 12 => 'State of Uttarakhand',
			(int) 13 => 'AIR 1956',
			(int) 14 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 15 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 16 => 'AIR 1972',
			(int) 17 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 18 => 'The State of U.P.',
			(int) 19 => 'CRI',
			(int) 20 => 'State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 21 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 22 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 23 => 'Singh &amp',
			(int) 24 => 'Ors',
			(int) 25 => 'the unlawful assembly',
			(int) 26 => 'AIR 1999',
			(int) 27 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 28 => 'State of Punjab',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'AIR 1997',
			(int) 33 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Yadav',
			(int) 35 => 'State of Bihar',
			(int) 36 => 'PSI',
			(int) 37 => 'A.P.I.',
			(int) 38 => 'Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad',
			(int) 39 => 'PW Seizure',
			(int) 40 => 'PW No.14',
			(int) 41 => 'PW No',
			(int) 42 => 'PW No.5',
			(int) 43 => 'PW No.17 Nikhil s/',
			(int) 44 => 'FIR',
			(int) 45 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 46 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 47 => 'Chemical Analyzer',
			(int) 48 => 'PW No.17',
			(int) 49 => 'PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
			(int) 50 => 'Exh.87',
			(int) 51 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
			(int) 52 => 'PW 9 Dr.',
			(int) 53 => 'Column No.17',
			(int) 54 => 'No.17',
			(int) 55 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 56 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 57 => '-Injury',
			(int) 58 => 'no.1',
			(int) 59 => 'no.2',
			(int) 60 => 'no.1',
			(int) 61 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 62 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 63 => 'no.2',
			(int) 64 => 'Khanjar Art',
			(int) 65 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
			(int) 66 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 67 => 'No.7 Sandeep @',
			(int) 68 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
			(int) 69 => 'Ganesh',
			(int) 70 => 'Santosh Thakur',
			(int) 71 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 72 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 73 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 74 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 75 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 76 => 'the Police.',
			(int) 77 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
			(int) 78 => 'Police Constable',
			(int) 79 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
			(int) 80 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 81 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
			(int) 82 => 'Sandeep',
			(int) 83 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 84 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 85 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 86 => 'Court',
			(int) 87 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
			(int) 88 => 'Narhari',
			(int) 89 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
			(int) 90 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
			(int) 91 => 'No.4 Ganesh s/',
			(int) 92 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
			(int) 93 => 'Narhari',
			(int) 94 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
			(int) 95 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
			(int) 96 => 'PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur',
			(int) 97 => 'Narhari',
			(int) 98 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 99 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
			(int) 100 => 'PW 4',
			(int) 101 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 102 => 'Appeal Nos.580',
			(int) 103 => 'Learned Advocate',
			(int) 104 => 'Court',
			(int) 105 => 'IPC',
			(int) 106 => 'IPC'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nanded',
			(int) 1 => 'another V. State of Punjab',
			(int) 2 => 'Mahbub',
			(int) 3 => 'Bihar',
			(int) 4 => 'Panch',
			(int) 5 => 'Panchnama',
			(int) 6 => 'Keshav',
			(int) 7 => 'PW',
			(int) 8 => 'Nos.576',
			(int) 9 => 'no.3',
			(int) 10 => 'no.3',
			(int) 11 => 'PW',
			(int) 12 => 'PW',
			(int) 13 => 'PW',
			(int) 14 => 'Kiran',
			(int) 15 => 'Kulchand',
			(int) 16 => 'Kulchand',
			(int) 17 => 'Nos.540',
			(int) 18 => 'PW',
			(int) 19 => 'Nanded',
			(int) 20 => 'No.10 Kulchand s/',
			(int) 21 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 22 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 23 => 'Kulchand Gadge'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10th Nov.',
			(int) 1 => '1413',
			(int) 2 => '174(1',
			(int) 3 => '2010',
			(int) 4 => '2010',
			(int) 5 => '1179',
			(int) 6 => '2007',
			(int) 7 => '3740',
			(int) 8 => '2010',
			(int) 9 => '3717',
			(int) 10 => '2003',
			(int) 11 => '3876',
			(int) 12 => '1808',
			(int) 13 => 'PW 1',
			(int) 14 => '61',
			(int) 15 => '62',
			(int) 16 => '21',
			(int) 17 => '27',
			(int) 18 => 'PW 3',
			(int) 19 => '14',
			(int) 20 => 'PW 9',
			(int) 21 => '21',
			(int) 22 => '18.11.2007',
			(int) 23 => 'the day',
			(int) 24 => '35',
			(int) 25 => '36',
			(int) 26 => '2009',
			(int) 27 => '2010',
			(int) 28 => 'I.P.C. 40',
			(int) 29 => '42',
			(int) 30 => '23 years',
			(int) 31 => 'ten years',
			(int) 32 => 'three months'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Heard Advocate',
			(int) 1 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
			(int) 2 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 3 => 'Medpallewar',
			(int) 4 => 'Swapnil',
			(int) 5 => 'Patil V. State',
			(int) 6 => 'S.34',
			(int) 7 => 'S.34',
			(int) 8 => 'Mohan Singh',
			(int) 9 => 'S.34',
			(int) 10 => 'S.34',
			(int) 11 => 'Pamma',
			(int) 12 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 13 => 'Baladin',
			(int) 14 => 'Ram Tahal',
			(int) 15 => 'Sudhir Annaji Choudhary',
			(int) 16 => 'Mustaq Alam',
			(int) 17 => 'V. State of',
			(int) 18 => 'Leela Ram v. State',
			(int) 19 => 'Sucha Singh',
			(int) 20 => 'Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
			(int) 21 => 'Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
			(int) 22 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
			(int) 23 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
			(int) 24 => 'Anil Mahadu Pohre',
			(int) 25 => 'No.12',
			(int) 26 => 'Kamlakar Govindrao Kale',
			(int) 27 => 'Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar',
			(int) 28 => 'Mukundrao Ghule',
			(int) 29 => 'Examined',
			(int) 30 => 'Narsareddy Satpalwar',
			(int) 31 => 'Marotirao Dongaonkar',
			(int) 32 => 'Raut',
			(int) 33 => 'Balu Raut',
			(int) 34 => 'Ambadas Dhone',
			(int) 35 => 'Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao',
			(int) 36 => 'Exh.89',
			(int) 37 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
			(int) 38 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
			(int) 39 => 'Vilas Gangaram Waghmare',
			(int) 40 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
			(int) 41 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
			(int) 42 => 'Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
			(int) 43 => 'no.576',
			(int) 44 => 'Vithal Pratwagh',
			(int) 45 => 'Vithal',
			(int) 46 => 'no.8',
			(int) 47 => 'Vithal',
			(int) 48 => 'Vithal',
			(int) 49 => 'No.4 Swapnil',
			(int) 50 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
			(int) 51 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
			(int) 52 => '4 Swapnil',
			(int) 53 => 'Ashwin Shinde',
			(int) 54 => 'Mahesh Thakur',
			(int) 55 => 'Ashwin',
			(int) 56 => 'Mahesh',
			(int) 57 => 'Jangamwadi',
			(int) 58 => 'Pintu Raut',
			(int) 59 => 'Satish Wagre',
			(int) 60 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
			(int) 61 => 'Anil Ghongde',
			(int) 62 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
			(int) 63 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 64 => 'Shekhar Bhalerao',
			(int) 65 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 66 => 'Satish Wagre',
			(int) 67 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 68 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 69 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 70 => 'Raut',
			(int) 71 => 'Kulchand',
			(int) 72 => 'Vijay',
			(int) 73 => 'Vijay',
			(int) 74 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
			(int) 75 => 'Octroi Naka',
			(int) 76 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 77 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
			(int) 78 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 79 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
			(int) 80 => 'Vijay',
			(int) 81 => 'Taroda Naka',
			(int) 82 => 'Swapnil',
			(int) 83 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 84 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
			(int) 85 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
			(int) 86 => 'Sandeep Karvande',
			(int) 87 => 'Pintu Raut',
			(int) 88 => 'Satish Wagre',
			(int) 89 => 'Shriram Madavi',
			(int) 90 => 'no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu',
			(int) 91 => 'Rauth',
			(int) 92 => 'Saurabh @ Banti s/',
			(int) 93 => 'Shriram Madavi',
			(int) 94 => 'No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule',
			(int) 95 => 'No.6 Vijay @ Anna',
			(int) 96 => 'No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy',
			(int) 97 => 'Rauth',
			(int) 98 => 'Raut',
			(int) 99 => 'Rauth',
			(int) 100 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
			(int) 101 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
			(int) 102 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 103 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 104 => 'Accused No.10',
			(int) 105 => 'Nos',
			(int) 106 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar',
			(int) 107 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
			(int) 108 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 1 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 2 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 3 => 'PW 9',
			(int) 4 => 'PW 9',
			(int) 5 => 'PW No.9',
			(int) 6 => 'PW 17',
			(int) 7 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 8 => 'PW No.4'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Accused No.7',
			(int) 1 => 'PW Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'PW No.7 Nilesh',
			(int) 3 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
			(int) 4 => 'PW 4 Swapnil',
			(int) 5 => 'PW 5 Shekhar - paper',
			(int) 6 => 'Prakash Wagre',
			(int) 7 => 'No.10',
			(int) 8 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 9 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 10 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 11 => 'No.10 Kulchand Gadge'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.302',
			(int) 1 => 'Satish',
			(int) 2 => 'Satish'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'fourth',
			(int) 1 => 'firstly'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Vs',
			(int) 1 => 'Vs',
			(int) 2 => 'no.1',
			(int) 3 => 'Bunty Kamble',
			(int) 4 => 'Bunty',
			(int) 5 => 'Bunty Kamble',
			(int) 6 => 'Bunty Kamble'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'PW No.10',
			(int) 1 => 'PW No.3',
			(int) 2 => 'Prashant Narsing Medpallewar',
			(int) 3 => 'Bunty and Satish'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm',
			(int) 1 => '1 cm',
			(int) 2 => '1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm',
			(int) 3 => '2 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 4 => '6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 5 => '5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm',
			(int) 6 => '3 x 2',
			(int) 7 => '1/2 cm',
			(int) 8 => '1/2 cm'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'a dark night',
			(int) 1 => '10/15 minutes',
			(int) 2 => 'ten minutes',
			(int) 3 => '25 minutes'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kulchand'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '925218',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 of 2009',
			'appellant' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.',
			'casenote' => '
[A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.] All accused persons flocked there. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. (e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses.  (i) Medical witnesses: Police witnesses: Panch witnesses: Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. (a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. 8. (Witness declared hostile) accused. Eye witnesses:- Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. -Injury No.3 is vertical injury. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh. All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant. Those accused persons ran away. I can tell names of accused persons. Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.
 ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2011-10-20',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">JUDGMENT:( Per A.H.JOSHI, J.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered severe injuries and, ultimately, died.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocates for various appellants have advanced submissions in support of appeals. It will be useful to summarize those as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) There is variation in the statements of witnesses and the prosecution story does not come forward consistently and coherently. PW No.17, star eye witness and the complainant did not support the prosecution and is declared hostile.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The prosecution has not come forward with any evidence whatsoever to prove any plan, pre-meditation or any other evidence, proving meeting of minds for proof of common object of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Recovery of weapon has come under doubt and, therefore, use of weapon by particular accused is not proved.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) If evidence is seen from any angle, common intention to kill deceased is not even suggested, much less proved. The incident must have been a matter of sudden fight, some provocation, etc. which was not proved by the prosecution and hence guilt of a particular accused or of unlawful assembly and, that too, of murdering, is not proved. No specific role has been attributed to the accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) There are various omissions and contradictions in the versions of the witnesses. The case turns out to be one based on sole testimony of PW No.4. Moreover, there are circumstances which falsify the story, considering proximity of the Police Station, and failure to report the offence immediately, arrival of a Police Constable on the spot, and failure to disclose this fact,etc. In the result, the case, which is totally based on testimony of PW No.4, Swapnil, would not tend to prove the offence of unlawful assembly and, hence, barely on suspicion, the accused cannot be convicted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Presence as well as role of Accused No.7 is not proved and, therefore, he cannot be convicted for any offence whatsoever. (g) Alternatively, even if it is proved to be a case of unlawful assembly, and that any proof of accused responsible vicariously for act of anyone who is member of assembly, even then, severity of sentence would vary on exact role played by each accused; as far as conviction and sentence of each accused is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(h) In absence of evidence of specific act by a particular accused, may be technical, the accused may be held guilty of being a member of unlawful assembly; yet, he cannot be sentenced with the same severity with which the main assailant would be dealt with. So long as the prosecution story proceeds on the basis that a particular accused has used deadly weapon, even if unlawful assembly is proved and any instigation, etc. by other accused is not proved, ipso facto, it cannot be held to be an unlawful assembly to have common object of murdering.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the result, the trial has to result in acquittal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Advocates for appellants have placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1413 (Krishna Govind Patil V. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Plan must precede the act constituting the offence. If that be so, before a Court can convict a person under S.302, read with S.34, provided that it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When four persons were charged under S.302 read with S.34 and are acquitted, fourth cannot be convicted for having committed the offence along with one or more of the acquitted persons. 9</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 174(1) (Mohan Singh and another V. State of Punjab) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The acts may be different, may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. It is now well settled that the common intention required by S.34 is different from the same intention or similar intention. As has been observed by the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, 72 Ind App 148 : (AIR 1945 PC 118), common intention within the meaning of S.34 implies a pre-arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan and that the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(3) (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 439 (Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) (2010) 5 SCC 81</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Whenever a court convicts any person of an offence with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the assembly must be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but that in pursuance of such common object the offence was committed. There is no manner of doubt that before recording the conviction under Section 149 IPC, the essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC must be established.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 181 (Baladin and others Vs. State of U.P.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Mere spectators had to be distinguished from members of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 254 (V 59 C 57) (Ram Tahal and others Vs. The State of U.P.) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For fixing constructive criminal liability under S.149 on members of an unlawful assembly the court must find with certainty that there were at least five persons sharing the common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) 2011 ALL MR (CRI) 1179 (Sudhir Annaji Choudhary and others vs. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Benefit of doubt could essentially go in favour of the accused, whose identity as a member of an unlawful assembly comes in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While conviction of the main accused may entail a capital punishment, it would not so occur in case of accused whose role was subsidiary and not concurrent with the overt act of the accused liable for severest of punishments.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) 2007 CRI.L.J. 3740 (State of U.P. v. Mustaq Alam) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When oral evidence of a witness contradicted by medical evidence, the very presence of such witness may come in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned A.P.P., in reply, has argued as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(a) It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove prior meeting of minds to prove the common object and it would suffice to prove that the assembly had common object and it was illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Any group of persons, which, on its inception may not be an unlawful assembly, would turn out to be an unlawful assembly, having continued and gained common object, which is illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Mathematical or geometric accuracy is not expected from the witnesses, who are laymen. What has to be seen is the totality of the impression that is portrayed, consequent upon observation of tenor of the witness and the fact as to truthfulness of version of the witness. Minor discrepancies would never take away the worthiness of the evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) On facts, the prosecution story, which is based on the oral evidence as to the presence of the accused persons, presence of all witnesses is proved; omission of some of the witnesses in naming few amongst them, by itself, would not result in destroying worthiness of the testimony of the witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. Even if one witness proves that the accused persons were present, they had marched with a common intention and common object, and few amongst those were not sheer passers-by or witnesses standing by the side, and rather participated in the act. All of them become members of the unlawful assembly, and have become liable for act of even one amongst them, who has caused the murder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) The omissions and contradictions relied upon and pointed by the defense do not result in destroying worth of the witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved its case and conviction deserves to be maintained.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1) 2010 CRI.L.J.3854 (Sikandar Singh &amp; Ors. V. State of Bihar) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">A `common object' does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The `common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the crime, are some of the relevant considerations.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2)(a) AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3717 (Leela Ram v. State of Haryana) and</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) 2003 CRI.L.J. 3876</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sucha Singh and another vs. State of Punjab) Propositions:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations : whereas some become speechless, some start wailing some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3) AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1808 (Nathuni Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and another.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Propositions:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Where assailants are not strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers, even in less or full illumination, the accused may be identified.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">9. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. The witnesses are broadly classified as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(i) Medical witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No 9 : Dr.Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh. (b) PW No.10: Dr.Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge. (c) PW No.16: Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare (d) PW No.18: Dr.Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Police witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No.6 : Anil Mahadu Pohre, Constable. (b) PW No.12: Kamlakar Govindrao Kale, PSI. (c) PW No.13: Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar, Lady Police Constable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.15: Uttam Mukundrao Ghule, A.P.I.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Panch witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. No.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. Inquest Panchnama (Exh.58)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Akash Narsareddy Satpalwar, PW 2. Panchnama of seizure of clothes (Exh.60, 61, 62)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Article No.12,19, 21 and 27)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Harish Marotirao Dongaonkar, PW 3. Recovery Panchnama ( Exh.68,69,70)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) Nilesh Bhanudasrao Gite, PW 7. Involvement of Pintu Raut and Balu Raut in planning to assault somebody and identity of Ambadas Dhone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Dnyaneshwar Ganpatrao Gaikwad, PW Seizure panchnama of clothes of</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. (Witness declared hostile) accused.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(iv) Witnesses on other aspects:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW No.14 (Exh.94) Narsing Naganna Medpallewar, father of deceased Prashant, proved earlier complaint in relation to a quarrel.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(v) Eye witnesses:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No. 4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) PW No.5 Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao (Exh.72).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur ( Exh.89) and,</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.17 Nikhil s/o Madhukar Kurdukar (Exh.129).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">10. The investigation relating to recording of FIR and recording of Panchnama is formal in nature. Discussion on these matters in details, would be of no much use in finding out which facts are proved, in view of the number of eye witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">11. The inquest and spot panchnamas, are not in serious dispute. The matters of seizure of the Khanjar, etc. are challenged by cross examination of PW Nos. 1 Keshav, PW No.2 Akash and PW No.3 Harish and the cross examination is not of much use. The recovery of Khanjar can thus be regarded as proved. Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. Any further discussion in relation to this evidence will not be of much need.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">12. The report of Chemical Analyzer, pertains to the blood stains found on 26 items forming part of evidence, gathered during investigation. The results being "inconclusive", any further discussion is unwarranted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">13. The injuries on the person of PW No.17 Nikhil Madhukar Kurdukar are proved by PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge, Medical Officer, whose testimony is at Exh.87, page No.593 and onwards.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Injuries suffered by accused No. 1 Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble and No.9 Vilas Gangaram Waghmare are proved by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16, Exh.126, page no. 719 and onwards. Injuries to PW No.18 Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte, Exh.134, page no.737 and onwards, are simple in nature.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">14. The injuries suffered by deceased Prashant Narsing Medpallewar are seen from the post mortem report (Exh.84, page No.583) and are proved by PW 9 Dr.Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh (Exh.83, page no.576 and onwards).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">15. The cause of death of Prashant Medpallewar is narrated in the post mortem examination report at page no.583 which reads as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Cause of death is due to cardiac arrest due to the stab injury to heart with multiple injuries on body with hypo-volumic shock."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from post mortem report, page No.589 of paper-book)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">16. PW No.9 Dr.Vithal Pratwagh has reproduced the injuries suffered by deceased Prashant in his testimony which correspond to Column No.17 of post mortem examination report (Page Nos.576 and 577). Those injuries read as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"1. A stab wound over left middle chest 6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. A wound over the left chest at Clavical region; 2 x 1 1/2 x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. A wound over the left lateral elbow 1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. A wound on below over the left elbow 1 1/2 x 2 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. A wound on lateral forearm 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. A wound on left axilary region 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm - tissue dead.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. A wound perforated on left sub costal lateral on omentum is out from wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. A wound over the right shoulder 2 x 2 x 1/2 cm."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of PW 9, at paper book page Nos.576 and 577.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">17. As regards the weapon, which was possibly used for causing the injuries referred to in column No.17, PW No.9 Dr.Vithal has deposed as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" -External injury No.1 and 7 are possible by Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury No.2 may be possible by dropping a big stone on chest.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 may be possible by blows of Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.3 is vertical injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.4 is an horizontal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">External injury No.5 may be possible by rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury no.8 may be possible by rod."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of Dr.Vithal, PW 9, paper-book page No.577 578.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">18. PW 9 Dr. Vithal then proceeds to opine the adequacy of injuries to cause death. Relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"06. External injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death. Due to external injuries no.1 and 7 there is possibility of oozing lot of blood. External injuries no.2 and 6 shows that firstly deceased was assaulted by sharp object and then stone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">07. External injuries no.1 and 7 may be possible by Khanjar Art.no.34. Khanjar now shown to me."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.2 and 6 may be possible by Art.no.3 stone, now shown to me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 are possible by Khanjar Art.No.34." (quoted from deposition of PW 9 paper-book page No.578 of paper- book.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">19. The testimony of PW No.9, has been done in searching cross examination conducted by different Advocates for the accused persons. The testimony is not shattered as regards probable weapon of assault and as to the cause of death assigned in the post mortem report.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">20. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">21. The eye witness on which the prosecution case entirely stands is PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71). PW No.4 is also injured and whose injuries are certified by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">22. PW 4 Swapnil has narrated the initial incident as to what happened in relation to throwing of the stone on the motor cycle and the quarrel that had followed thereon. He names all accused, except accused No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande and describes the situation in his words as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Incident took place on 18.11.2007.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">On the day, in the evening, I was returning from work.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At workshop T-point, Ashwin Shinde and Mahesh Thakur met me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, myself, Ashwin and Mahesh were proceeding towards Jangamwadi on foot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We reached at Jangamwadi Chowk square.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At that time, Pintu Raut, Bunty Kamble, Satish Wagre, Vijay Lingayat, Sandy, Anil Ghongde, Vilas Waghmare, Kiran and Ganesh and Kulchand were talking to Nikhil Kurdukar, Santosh Thakur and Shekhar Bhalerao.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, Bunty and Satish asked Nikhil why he gave abuse to them and pushed him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We tried to convince them, but they did not listen us.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Bunty Kamble and Satish Wagre assaulted Nikhil by fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Nikhil called Prashant on telephone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Immediately, Prashant came there on motor cycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He tried to convince those persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those boys were more in number, hence I afraid and went aside.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Pintu Raut took Khanjar from Kulchand and gave blows of Khanjar on chest, stomach (chest side), leg of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Kulchand took that Khanjar and assaulted Prashant, by inflicting blows of Khanjar in any direction.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant received those blows on his hand and shoulder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Rest accused persons assaulted Nikhil by rod and fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant was lying on ground.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Accused Vijay put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on the chest of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Prashant was lying facing his mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Vijay lifted that stone and put that stone on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter Police came there by motorcycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those accused persons ran away." (quoted from deposition of PW 4 Swapnil - paper- book page Nos.540 and 541, Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reading.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">23. This witness PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar has been cross examined in order to impeach his testimony by showing him the omissions and suggestions as follows:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) It was a dark night and there was no electricity supply and, in the result, there was no illumination.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Though he has stated that there was illumination, he did not say it before the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(3) Omission as regards assault on hand and shoulder, the distance between Bhagyanagar Police Station and the place of the incident;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Omission of the fact that Police Constable arrived on the spot where there was no any traffic when the incident occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Visibility of the place of offense from Bhagyanagar Police Station or Octroi Naka.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) He did not go to Police Chowky in the hospital or nearest Police Station or the Police Station on the way.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The oral exchange went on for 10/15 minutes and it was not informed to the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The duration of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">24. PW No.5 Shekhar gives the background of the incident as regards actual assault. He states as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Bunty and Satish were also present and they also assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was iron rod in the hands of Sandeep and Vilas Waghmare. They assaulted to Nikhil and Prashant by that rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Kulchand Gadge gave blows of Khanjar to Prashant in many directions.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was rush and hence I could not see actual incident of other assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant fell on ground in that assault. Accused Vijay Lingayat put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on Prashant. That stone was put on the chest of Prashant. After putting stone, Prashant was lying facing mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again Vijay lifted that stone and put on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant sustained many bleeding injuries and blood was fallen on earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, one policeman came from Taroda Naka. He came on motor cycle. Thereafter, all accused persons fled away from the spot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Swapnil and Nikhil lifted Prashant and took him to hospital by motor cycle. I also followed them to Civil Hospital, Nanded. Doctor examined and reported Prashant dead. The accused persons before the Court are the same.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was light at incident spot from three poles which are standing near pan-stall, hair saloon and power house.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I can tell names of accused persons. They are Vijay Lingayat, Vilas Waghmare, Sandeep Karvande, Kiran Phule, Pintu Raut, Ganesh Madvi, Satish Wagre and Bunty Kamble."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Quoted from deposition of PW 5 Shekhar - paper book page nos. 555 and 556.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience and emphasis.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">25. PW 5 Shekhar has given names of all accused, except accused nos. 4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, and names accused no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth as regards the initial verbal exchange is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">26. In so far as the actual assault is concerned, PW 5 Shekhar names accused no. 1, Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble, No.2 Satish s/o Prakash Wagre, No.4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule, No.6 Vijay @ Anna s/o Chandrakant, No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande, No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth and No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In the cross examination PW 5 Shekhar has replied as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. Answer : I could not see his act due to rush."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In further cross examination this witness narrates that the incident ended within ten minutes. He did not try to catch any of the assailants nor reported the matter to the Police. He is a friend of the victims. The assailants were ten in number and he was frightened.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">27. As regards testimony of PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur is concerned, he involves all accused, however, naming specifically, the accused No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth, No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge having done the assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">28. Prosecution witness No.17 Nikhil Kurdukar who is also injured, in the beginning, gave due account of the event, however, declined to reveal all that he had stated about the incident and, hence, was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. In the cross examination of this witness by the accused, what he has revealed in substance is that:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30 to 35 persons had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident and that a Policeman had arrived on the spot when the assault was just over.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The incident went on for 25 minutes and the Police Station was on the way to the hospital where Prashant was taken.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">29. PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh, eye witnesses, though have been relied upon, their testimonies do not render any valuable assistance to the prosecution.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The contents of these testimonies do not have worth for which those were tendered i.e. the object of prosecution to involve all accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30. Sum effect of the examination in chief and cross examination of PW 17 Nikhil Kurdukar is that he has stated about the involvement of accused nos. 1 Saurabh, No.2 Satish and No.10 Kulchand Gadge by use of knife, stones, etc. though he said that all accused had assaulted him as well as Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">31. When the testimony of all witnesses is seen together as regards the actual fatal assault, the testimony of PW No.4 is crucial.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">32. While testimony of all other witnesses is not of much use qua the for assault on the deceased. The testimonies of all these witnesses can be scrutinized as regards other aspects such as unlawful assembly, common object, etc. Even upon accepting the testimonies of all these witnesses, fervently relied upon by the prosecution, nothing crucial emerges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">33. What can be concluded in favour of the prosecution is that large number of accused persons, whose identification is vague, were present at the scene of offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The evidence does not succeed in proving either common intention or common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">34. The testimony of PW No.4 describes specific acts by the accused No.10 in assaulting the deceased, resulting into fatal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW 4 has done this without any ambiguity. He has stated that Kulchand Gadge, accused No.10, gave the fatal blow.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">35. As it is seen from the record that PW No.4 is the sole witness who has named Kulchand Gadge. However, description of the acts done by Kulchand Gadge is very specific and unambiguous.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">36. The result is that the fatal assault by deadly weapon resulting into death of Prashant is attributable to Kulchand Gadge only. Presence of all other accused, though suggested, cannot be recorded as proved for any specific act, forming offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">37. The evidence tends to prove that there was rivalry between two groups. The evidence, however, does not prove in positive terms that assault by Kulchand Gadge, Accused No.10, was with an intention to murder Prashant. The weapon of assault and location of injury i.e. the chest, is, taken into account, however proves that a person of ordinary prudence was bound to know the result of injury caused by him. The accused could have explained circumstances, if any, as to how he had caused injuries and whether he claimed any private defence or explained the nature and cause of injury which was proved to have been caused by him. It is, thus, evident that the accused No.10 is guilty of offence of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and is liable therefor.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">38. Appeal Nos.580, 601, 619, 627 all of 2009 and appeal Nos. 2 &amp; 5, both of 2010 are allowed. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">39. Appeal No.625/2009 filed by accused No. 10 Kulchand Gadge is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is modified, and instead of Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused No.10 Kulchand Gadge is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 1st part of I.P.C.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">40. Now, we propose to hear the accused No. 10 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">41. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, who appears for the appellant / accused No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge in appeal No.625/2009 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">42. Learned Advocate Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar has urged following points in order to secure leniency for the accused Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the age of the accused, on the date of the incident, was 23 years.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) According to the prosecution, though there is background of rivalry, - considering the age of the accused, he cannot be considered to be a person of political intent with criminal mind. He, therefore, prays for leniency.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">43. Considering that the offence, which this Court has held to be proved, is under Section 304 Part I of IPC, but for the intention, the accused / appellant has saved himself from conviction under Section 302 of IPC yet, when considering the gravity of offence, which does not in any manner get diluted and also, considering the age of the accused, the sentence could not reach life imprisonment.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The accused is, therefore, considered liable for sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand) and three months simple imprisonment for default in payment of fine.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He would be entitled to set off as is available in law under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of MaharashtrA.',
			'sub' => '',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '925218'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 4(25',
		(int) 1 => 'Indian Arms Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 149',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 149 IPC',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 149 IPC',
		(int) 5 => 'Article No.12,19',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 302 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 304 1st',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 304',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => 'ten',
		(int) 2 => '2',
		(int) 3 => '3.',
		(int) 4 => '341',
		(int) 5 => '323',
		(int) 6 => '504',
		(int) 7 => '506',
		(int) 8 => '324',
		(int) 9 => '147',
		(int) 10 => '148',
		(int) 11 => '149',
		(int) 12 => '4',
		(int) 13 => '5',
		(int) 14 => '6',
		(int) 15 => '1',
		(int) 16 => 'four',
		(int) 17 => '9',
		(int) 18 => '2',
		(int) 19 => '72',
		(int) 20 => '118',
		(int) 21 => '3',
		(int) 22 => '10',
		(int) 23 => '439',
		(int) 24 => '4',
		(int) 25 => '5',
		(int) 26 => '5',
		(int) 27 => '181',
		(int) 28 => '6',
		(int) 29 => '254',
		(int) 30 => 'at least five',
		(int) 31 => '8)',
		(int) 32 => 'one',
		(int) 33 => '8',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => 'five',
		(int) 36 => '2)(a',
		(int) 37 => '3',
		(int) 38 => '9',
		(int) 39 => '18',
		(int) 40 => '8',
		(int) 41 => '4',
		(int) 42 => '10',
		(int) 43 => '11',
		(int) 44 => '1',
		(int) 45 => '12',
		(int) 46 => '26',
		(int) 47 => '13',
		(int) 48 => '1',
		(int) 49 => '719',
		(int) 50 => 'no.737',
		(int) 51 => '15',
		(int) 52 => '16',
		(int) 53 => '577',
		(int) 54 => '1',
		(int) 55 => '2.',
		(int) 56 => '2',
		(int) 57 => '1 1/2',
		(int) 58 => '3.',
		(int) 59 => '4.',
		(int) 60 => '1 1/2',
		(int) 61 => '5',
		(int) 62 => '6.',
		(int) 63 => '8.',
		(int) 64 => '2',
		(int) 65 => '2',
		(int) 66 => '577',
		(int) 67 => '17',
		(int) 68 => 'No.1',
		(int) 69 => '7',
		(int) 70 => 'No.2',
		(int) 71 => '4',
		(int) 72 => 'No.3',
		(int) 73 => 'No.4',
		(int) 74 => '578',
		(int) 75 => '18',
		(int) 76 => '06',
		(int) 77 => '7',
		(int) 78 => '6',
		(int) 79 => '07',
		(int) 80 => '7',
		(int) 81 => '6',
		(int) 82 => '4',
		(int) 83 => '19',
		(int) 84 => '20',
		(int) 85 => 'No.4',
		(int) 86 => '22',
		(int) 87 => '15 to 20',
		(int) 88 => '541',
		(int) 89 => '23',
		(int) 90 => 'No.4',
		(int) 91 => '1',
		(int) 92 => '2',
		(int) 93 => '4',
		(int) 94 => '5',
		(int) 95 => '6',
		(int) 96 => '8)',
		(int) 97 => '24',
		(int) 98 => '15 to 20',
		(int) 99 => 'three',
		(int) 100 => '555',
		(int) 101 => '556',
		(int) 102 => '25',
		(int) 103 => '4',
		(int) 104 => '26',
		(int) 105 => '1',
		(int) 106 => 'No.2',
		(int) 107 => 'No.8',
		(int) 108 => 'ten',
		(int) 109 => '27',
		(int) 110 => 'No.8',
		(int) 111 => '28',
		(int) 112 => '30 to 35',
		(int) 113 => '29',
		(int) 114 => '30',
		(int) 115 => '1',
		(int) 116 => 'No.2',
		(int) 117 => '31',
		(int) 118 => '32',
		(int) 119 => '33',
		(int) 120 => '34',
		(int) 121 => '37.',
		(int) 122 => 'two',
		(int) 123 => '38',
		(int) 124 => '601',
		(int) 125 => '619',
		(int) 126 => '627',
		(int) 127 => '5',
		(int) 128 => '39',
		(int) 129 => '10',
		(int) 130 => '10',
		(int) 131 => '41',
		(int) 132 => '43.',
		(int) 133 => 'thousand'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Court of Additional Sessions',
		(int) 1 => 'IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 3 => 'PW No.17',
		(int) 4 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 5 => 'a Police Constable',
		(int) 6 => 'AIR 1963',
		(int) 7 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'AIR 1963',
		(int) 10 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 11 => 'the Privy Council',
		(int) 12 => 'State of Uttarakhand',
		(int) 13 => 'AIR 1956',
		(int) 14 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 15 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 16 => 'AIR 1972',
		(int) 17 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 18 => 'The State of U.P.',
		(int) 19 => 'CRI',
		(int) 20 => 'State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 21 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 22 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 23 => 'Singh &amp',
		(int) 24 => 'Ors',
		(int) 25 => 'the unlawful assembly',
		(int) 26 => 'AIR 1999',
		(int) 27 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 28 => 'State of Punjab',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'AIR 1997',
		(int) 33 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Yadav',
		(int) 35 => 'State of Bihar',
		(int) 36 => 'PSI',
		(int) 37 => 'A.P.I.',
		(int) 38 => 'Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad',
		(int) 39 => 'PW Seizure',
		(int) 40 => 'PW No.14',
		(int) 41 => 'PW No',
		(int) 42 => 'PW No.5',
		(int) 43 => 'PW No.17 Nikhil s/',
		(int) 44 => 'FIR',
		(int) 45 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 46 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 47 => 'Chemical Analyzer',
		(int) 48 => 'PW No.17',
		(int) 49 => 'PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
		(int) 50 => 'Exh.87',
		(int) 51 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
		(int) 52 => 'PW 9 Dr.',
		(int) 53 => 'Column No.17',
		(int) 54 => 'No.17',
		(int) 55 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 56 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 57 => '-Injury',
		(int) 58 => 'no.1',
		(int) 59 => 'no.2',
		(int) 60 => 'no.1',
		(int) 61 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 62 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 63 => 'no.2',
		(int) 64 => 'Khanjar Art',
		(int) 65 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
		(int) 66 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 67 => 'No.7 Sandeep @',
		(int) 68 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
		(int) 69 => 'Ganesh',
		(int) 70 => 'Santosh Thakur',
		(int) 71 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 72 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 73 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 74 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 75 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 76 => 'the Police.',
		(int) 77 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
		(int) 78 => 'Police Constable',
		(int) 79 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
		(int) 80 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 81 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
		(int) 82 => 'Sandeep',
		(int) 83 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 84 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 85 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 86 => 'Court',
		(int) 87 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
		(int) 88 => 'Narhari',
		(int) 89 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
		(int) 90 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
		(int) 91 => 'No.4 Ganesh s/',
		(int) 92 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
		(int) 93 => 'Narhari',
		(int) 94 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
		(int) 95 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
		(int) 96 => 'PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur',
		(int) 97 => 'Narhari',
		(int) 98 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 99 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
		(int) 100 => 'PW 4',
		(int) 101 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 102 => 'Appeal Nos.580',
		(int) 103 => 'Learned Advocate',
		(int) 104 => 'Court',
		(int) 105 => 'IPC',
		(int) 106 => 'IPC'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nanded',
		(int) 1 => 'another V. State of Punjab',
		(int) 2 => 'Mahbub',
		(int) 3 => 'Bihar',
		(int) 4 => 'Panch',
		(int) 5 => 'Panchnama',
		(int) 6 => 'Keshav',
		(int) 7 => 'PW',
		(int) 8 => 'Nos.576',
		(int) 9 => 'no.3',
		(int) 10 => 'no.3',
		(int) 11 => 'PW',
		(int) 12 => 'PW',
		(int) 13 => 'PW',
		(int) 14 => 'Kiran',
		(int) 15 => 'Kulchand',
		(int) 16 => 'Kulchand',
		(int) 17 => 'Nos.540',
		(int) 18 => 'PW',
		(int) 19 => 'Nanded',
		(int) 20 => 'No.10 Kulchand s/',
		(int) 21 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 22 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 23 => 'Kulchand Gadge'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10th Nov.',
		(int) 1 => '1413',
		(int) 2 => '174(1',
		(int) 3 => '2010',
		(int) 4 => '2010',
		(int) 5 => '1179',
		(int) 6 => '2007',
		(int) 7 => '3740',
		(int) 8 => '2010',
		(int) 9 => '3717',
		(int) 10 => '2003',
		(int) 11 => '3876',
		(int) 12 => '1808',
		(int) 13 => 'PW 1',
		(int) 14 => '61',
		(int) 15 => '62',
		(int) 16 => '21',
		(int) 17 => '27',
		(int) 18 => 'PW 3',
		(int) 19 => '14',
		(int) 20 => 'PW 9',
		(int) 21 => '21',
		(int) 22 => '18.11.2007',
		(int) 23 => 'the day',
		(int) 24 => '35',
		(int) 25 => '36',
		(int) 26 => '2009',
		(int) 27 => '2010',
		(int) 28 => 'I.P.C. 40',
		(int) 29 => '42',
		(int) 30 => '23 years',
		(int) 31 => 'ten years',
		(int) 32 => 'three months'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Heard Advocate',
		(int) 1 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
		(int) 2 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 3 => 'Medpallewar',
		(int) 4 => 'Swapnil',
		(int) 5 => 'Patil V. State',
		(int) 6 => 'S.34',
		(int) 7 => 'S.34',
		(int) 8 => 'Mohan Singh',
		(int) 9 => 'S.34',
		(int) 10 => 'S.34',
		(int) 11 => 'Pamma',
		(int) 12 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 13 => 'Baladin',
		(int) 14 => 'Ram Tahal',
		(int) 15 => 'Sudhir Annaji Choudhary',
		(int) 16 => 'Mustaq Alam',
		(int) 17 => 'V. State of',
		(int) 18 => 'Leela Ram v. State',
		(int) 19 => 'Sucha Singh',
		(int) 20 => 'Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
		(int) 21 => 'Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
		(int) 22 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
		(int) 23 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
		(int) 24 => 'Anil Mahadu Pohre',
		(int) 25 => 'No.12',
		(int) 26 => 'Kamlakar Govindrao Kale',
		(int) 27 => 'Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar',
		(int) 28 => 'Mukundrao Ghule',
		(int) 29 => 'Examined',
		(int) 30 => 'Narsareddy Satpalwar',
		(int) 31 => 'Marotirao Dongaonkar',
		(int) 32 => 'Raut',
		(int) 33 => 'Balu Raut',
		(int) 34 => 'Ambadas Dhone',
		(int) 35 => 'Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao',
		(int) 36 => 'Exh.89',
		(int) 37 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
		(int) 38 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
		(int) 39 => 'Vilas Gangaram Waghmare',
		(int) 40 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
		(int) 41 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
		(int) 42 => 'Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
		(int) 43 => 'no.576',
		(int) 44 => 'Vithal Pratwagh',
		(int) 45 => 'Vithal',
		(int) 46 => 'no.8',
		(int) 47 => 'Vithal',
		(int) 48 => 'Vithal',
		(int) 49 => 'No.4 Swapnil',
		(int) 50 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
		(int) 51 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
		(int) 52 => '4 Swapnil',
		(int) 53 => 'Ashwin Shinde',
		(int) 54 => 'Mahesh Thakur',
		(int) 55 => 'Ashwin',
		(int) 56 => 'Mahesh',
		(int) 57 => 'Jangamwadi',
		(int) 58 => 'Pintu Raut',
		(int) 59 => 'Satish Wagre',
		(int) 60 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
		(int) 61 => 'Anil Ghongde',
		(int) 62 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
		(int) 63 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 64 => 'Shekhar Bhalerao',
		(int) 65 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 66 => 'Satish Wagre',
		(int) 67 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 68 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 69 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 70 => 'Raut',
		(int) 71 => 'Kulchand',
		(int) 72 => 'Vijay',
		(int) 73 => 'Vijay',
		(int) 74 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
		(int) 75 => 'Octroi Naka',
		(int) 76 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 77 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
		(int) 78 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 79 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
		(int) 80 => 'Vijay',
		(int) 81 => 'Taroda Naka',
		(int) 82 => 'Swapnil',
		(int) 83 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 84 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
		(int) 85 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
		(int) 86 => 'Sandeep Karvande',
		(int) 87 => 'Pintu Raut',
		(int) 88 => 'Satish Wagre',
		(int) 89 => 'Shriram Madavi',
		(int) 90 => 'no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu',
		(int) 91 => 'Rauth',
		(int) 92 => 'Saurabh @ Banti s/',
		(int) 93 => 'Shriram Madavi',
		(int) 94 => 'No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule',
		(int) 95 => 'No.6 Vijay @ Anna',
		(int) 96 => 'No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy',
		(int) 97 => 'Rauth',
		(int) 98 => 'Raut',
		(int) 99 => 'Rauth',
		(int) 100 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
		(int) 101 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
		(int) 102 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 103 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 104 => 'Accused No.10',
		(int) 105 => 'Nos',
		(int) 106 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar',
		(int) 107 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
		(int) 108 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 1 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 2 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 3 => 'PW 9',
		(int) 4 => 'PW 9',
		(int) 5 => 'PW No.9',
		(int) 6 => 'PW 17',
		(int) 7 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 8 => 'PW No.4'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Accused No.7',
		(int) 1 => 'PW Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'PW No.7 Nilesh',
		(int) 3 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
		(int) 4 => 'PW 4 Swapnil',
		(int) 5 => 'PW 5 Shekhar - paper',
		(int) 6 => 'Prakash Wagre',
		(int) 7 => 'No.10',
		(int) 8 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 9 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 10 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 11 => 'No.10 Kulchand Gadge'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.302',
		(int) 1 => 'Satish',
		(int) 2 => 'Satish'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'fourth',
		(int) 1 => 'firstly'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Vs',
		(int) 1 => 'Vs',
		(int) 2 => 'no.1',
		(int) 3 => 'Bunty Kamble',
		(int) 4 => 'Bunty',
		(int) 5 => 'Bunty Kamble',
		(int) 6 => 'Bunty Kamble'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'PW No.10',
		(int) 1 => 'PW No.3',
		(int) 2 => 'Prashant Narsing Medpallewar',
		(int) 3 => 'Bunty and Satish'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm',
		(int) 1 => '1 cm',
		(int) 2 => '1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm',
		(int) 3 => '2 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 4 => '6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 5 => '5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm',
		(int) 6 => '3 x 2',
		(int) 7 => '1/2 cm',
		(int) 8 => '1/2 cm'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'a dark night',
		(int) 1 => '10/15 minutes',
		(int) 2 => 'ten minutes',
		(int) 3 => '25 minutes'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kulchand'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '925218',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 of 2009',
		'appellant' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.',
		'casenote' => '
[A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.] All accused persons flocked there. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. (e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. &nbsp;(i) Medical witnesses: Police witnesses: Panch witnesses: Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. (a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. 8. (Witness declared hostile) accused. Eye witnesses:- Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. -Injury No.3 is vertical injury. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh. All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant. Those accused persons ran away. I can tell names of accused persons. Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.
&nbsp;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2011-10-20',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">JUDGMENT:( Per A.H.JOSHI, J.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered severe injuries and, ultimately, died.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocates for various appellants have advanced submissions in support of appeals. It will be useful to summarize those as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) There is variation in the statements of witnesses and the prosecution story does not come forward consistently and coherently. PW No.17, star eye witness and the complainant did not support the prosecution and is declared hostile.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The prosecution has not come forward with any evidence whatsoever to prove any plan, pre-meditation or any other evidence, proving meeting of minds for proof of common object of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Recovery of weapon has come under doubt and, therefore, use of weapon by particular accused is not proved.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) If evidence is seen from any angle, common intention to kill deceased is not even suggested, much less proved. The incident must have been a matter of sudden fight, some provocation, etc. which was not proved by the prosecution and hence guilt of a particular accused or of unlawful assembly and, that too, of murdering, is not proved. No specific role has been attributed to the accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) There are various omissions and contradictions in the versions of the witnesses. The case turns out to be one based on sole testimony of PW No.4. Moreover, there are circumstances which falsify the story, considering proximity of the Police Station, and failure to report the offence immediately, arrival of a Police Constable on the spot, and failure to disclose this fact,etc. In the result, the case, which is totally based on testimony of PW No.4, Swapnil, would not tend to prove the offence of unlawful assembly and, hence, barely on suspicion, the accused cannot be convicted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Presence as well as role of Accused No.7 is not proved and, therefore, he cannot be convicted for any offence whatsoever. (g) Alternatively, even if it is proved to be a case of unlawful assembly, and that any proof of accused responsible vicariously for act of anyone who is member of assembly, even then, severity of sentence would vary on exact role played by each accused; as far as conviction and sentence of each accused is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(h) In absence of evidence of specific act by a particular accused, may be technical, the accused may be held guilty of being a member of unlawful assembly; yet, he cannot be sentenced with the same severity with which the main assailant would be dealt with. So long as the prosecution story proceeds on the basis that a particular accused has used deadly weapon, even if unlawful assembly is proved and any instigation, etc. by other accused is not proved, ipso facto, it cannot be held to be an unlawful assembly to have common object of murdering.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the result, the trial has to result in acquittal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Advocates for appellants have placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1413 (Krishna Govind Patil V. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Plan must precede the act constituting the offence. If that be so, before a Court can convict a person under S.302, read with S.34, provided that it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When four persons were charged under S.302 read with S.34 and are acquitted, fourth cannot be convicted for having committed the offence along with one or more of the acquitted persons. 9</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 174(1) (Mohan Singh and another V. State of Punjab) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The acts may be different, may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. It is now well settled that the common intention required by S.34 is different from the same intention or similar intention. As has been observed by the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, 72 Ind App 148 : (AIR 1945 PC 118), common intention within the meaning of S.34 implies a pre-arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan and that the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(3) (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 439 (Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) (2010) 5 SCC 81</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Whenever a court convicts any person of an offence with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the assembly must be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but that in pursuance of such common object the offence was committed. There is no manner of doubt that before recording the conviction under Section 149 IPC, the essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC must be established.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 181 (Baladin and others Vs. State of U.P.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Mere spectators had to be distinguished from members of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 254 (V 59 C 57) (Ram Tahal and others Vs. The State of U.P.) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For fixing constructive criminal liability under S.149 on members of an unlawful assembly the court must find with certainty that there were at least five persons sharing the common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) 2011 ALL MR (CRI) 1179 (Sudhir Annaji Choudhary and others vs. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Benefit of doubt could essentially go in favour of the accused, whose identity as a member of an unlawful assembly comes in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While conviction of the main accused may entail a capital punishment, it would not so occur in case of accused whose role was subsidiary and not concurrent with the overt act of the accused liable for severest of punishments.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) 2007 CRI.L.J. 3740 (State of U.P. v. Mustaq Alam) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When oral evidence of a witness contradicted by medical evidence, the very presence of such witness may come in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned A.P.P., in reply, has argued as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(a) It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove prior meeting of minds to prove the common object and it would suffice to prove that the assembly had common object and it was illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Any group of persons, which, on its inception may not be an unlawful assembly, would turn out to be an unlawful assembly, having continued and gained common object, which is illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Mathematical or geometric accuracy is not expected from the witnesses, who are laymen. What has to be seen is the totality of the impression that is portrayed, consequent upon observation of tenor of the witness and the fact as to truthfulness of version of the witness. Minor discrepancies would never take away the worthiness of the evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) On facts, the prosecution story, which is based on the oral evidence as to the presence of the accused persons, presence of all witnesses is proved; omission of some of the witnesses in naming few amongst them, by itself, would not result in destroying worthiness of the testimony of the witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. Even if one witness proves that the accused persons were present, they had marched with a common intention and common object, and few amongst those were not sheer passers-by or witnesses standing by the side, and rather participated in the act. All of them become members of the unlawful assembly, and have become liable for act of even one amongst them, who has caused the murder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) The omissions and contradictions relied upon and pointed by the defense do not result in destroying worth of the witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved its case and conviction deserves to be maintained.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1) 2010 CRI.L.J.3854 (Sikandar Singh &amp; Ors. V. State of Bihar) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">A `common object' does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The `common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the crime, are some of the relevant considerations.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2)(a) AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3717 (Leela Ram v. State of Haryana) and</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) 2003 CRI.L.J. 3876</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sucha Singh and another vs. State of Punjab) Propositions:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations : whereas some become speechless, some start wailing some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3) AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1808 (Nathuni Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and another.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Propositions:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Where assailants are not strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers, even in less or full illumination, the accused may be identified.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">9. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. The witnesses are broadly classified as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(i) Medical witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No 9 : Dr.Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh. (b) PW No.10: Dr.Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge. (c) PW No.16: Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare (d) PW No.18: Dr.Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Police witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No.6 : Anil Mahadu Pohre, Constable. (b) PW No.12: Kamlakar Govindrao Kale, PSI. (c) PW No.13: Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar, Lady Police Constable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.15: Uttam Mukundrao Ghule, A.P.I.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Panch witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. No.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. Inquest Panchnama (Exh.58)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Akash Narsareddy Satpalwar, PW 2. Panchnama of seizure of clothes (Exh.60, 61, 62)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Article No.12,19, 21 and 27)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Harish Marotirao Dongaonkar, PW 3. Recovery Panchnama ( Exh.68,69,70)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) Nilesh Bhanudasrao Gite, PW 7. Involvement of Pintu Raut and Balu Raut in planning to assault somebody and identity of Ambadas Dhone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Dnyaneshwar Ganpatrao Gaikwad, PW Seizure panchnama of clothes of</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. (Witness declared hostile) accused.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(iv) Witnesses on other aspects:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW No.14 (Exh.94) Narsing Naganna Medpallewar, father of deceased Prashant, proved earlier complaint in relation to a quarrel.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(v) Eye witnesses:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No. 4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) PW No.5 Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao (Exh.72).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur ( Exh.89) and,</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.17 Nikhil s/o Madhukar Kurdukar (Exh.129).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">10. The investigation relating to recording of FIR and recording of Panchnama is formal in nature. Discussion on these matters in details, would be of no much use in finding out which facts are proved, in view of the number of eye witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">11. The inquest and spot panchnamas, are not in serious dispute. The matters of seizure of the Khanjar, etc. are challenged by cross examination of PW Nos. 1 Keshav, PW No.2 Akash and PW No.3 Harish and the cross examination is not of much use. The recovery of Khanjar can thus be regarded as proved. Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. Any further discussion in relation to this evidence will not be of much need.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">12. The report of Chemical Analyzer, pertains to the blood stains found on 26 items forming part of evidence, gathered during investigation. The results being "inconclusive", any further discussion is unwarranted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">13. The injuries on the person of PW No.17 Nikhil Madhukar Kurdukar are proved by PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge, Medical Officer, whose testimony is at Exh.87, page No.593 and onwards.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Injuries suffered by accused No. 1 Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble and No.9 Vilas Gangaram Waghmare are proved by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16, Exh.126, page no. 719 and onwards. Injuries to PW No.18 Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte, Exh.134, page no.737 and onwards, are simple in nature.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">14. The injuries suffered by deceased Prashant Narsing Medpallewar are seen from the post mortem report (Exh.84, page No.583) and are proved by PW 9 Dr.Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh (Exh.83, page no.576 and onwards).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">15. The cause of death of Prashant Medpallewar is narrated in the post mortem examination report at page no.583 which reads as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Cause of death is due to cardiac arrest due to the stab injury to heart with multiple injuries on body with hypo-volumic shock."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from post mortem report, page No.589 of paper-book)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">16. PW No.9 Dr.Vithal Pratwagh has reproduced the injuries suffered by deceased Prashant in his testimony which correspond to Column No.17 of post mortem examination report (Page Nos.576 and 577). Those injuries read as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"1. A stab wound over left middle chest 6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. A wound over the left chest at Clavical region; 2 x 1 1/2 x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. A wound over the left lateral elbow 1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. A wound on below over the left elbow 1 1/2 x 2 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. A wound on lateral forearm 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. A wound on left axilary region 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm - tissue dead.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. A wound perforated on left sub costal lateral on omentum is out from wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. A wound over the right shoulder 2 x 2 x 1/2 cm."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of PW 9, at paper book page Nos.576 and 577.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">17. As regards the weapon, which was possibly used for causing the injuries referred to in column No.17, PW No.9 Dr.Vithal has deposed as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" -External injury No.1 and 7 are possible by Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury No.2 may be possible by dropping a big stone on chest.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 may be possible by blows of Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.3 is vertical injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.4 is an horizontal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">External injury No.5 may be possible by rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury no.8 may be possible by rod."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of Dr.Vithal, PW 9, paper-book page No.577 578.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">18. PW 9 Dr. Vithal then proceeds to opine the adequacy of injuries to cause death. Relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"06. External injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death. Due to external injuries no.1 and 7 there is possibility of oozing lot of blood. External injuries no.2 and 6 shows that firstly deceased was assaulted by sharp object and then stone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">07. External injuries no.1 and 7 may be possible by Khanjar Art.no.34. Khanjar now shown to me."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.2 and 6 may be possible by Art.no.3 stone, now shown to me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 are possible by Khanjar Art.No.34." (quoted from deposition of PW 9 paper-book page No.578 of paper- book.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">19. The testimony of PW No.9, has been done in searching cross examination conducted by different Advocates for the accused persons. The testimony is not shattered as regards probable weapon of assault and as to the cause of death assigned in the post mortem report.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">20. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">21. The eye witness on which the prosecution case entirely stands is PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71). PW No.4 is also injured and whose injuries are certified by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">22. PW 4 Swapnil has narrated the initial incident as to what happened in relation to throwing of the stone on the motor cycle and the quarrel that had followed thereon. He names all accused, except accused No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande and describes the situation in his words as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Incident took place on 18.11.2007.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">On the day, in the evening, I was returning from work.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At workshop T-point, Ashwin Shinde and Mahesh Thakur met me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, myself, Ashwin and Mahesh were proceeding towards Jangamwadi on foot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We reached at Jangamwadi Chowk square.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At that time, Pintu Raut, Bunty Kamble, Satish Wagre, Vijay Lingayat, Sandy, Anil Ghongde, Vilas Waghmare, Kiran and Ganesh and Kulchand were talking to Nikhil Kurdukar, Santosh Thakur and Shekhar Bhalerao.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, Bunty and Satish asked Nikhil why he gave abuse to them and pushed him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We tried to convince them, but they did not listen us.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Bunty Kamble and Satish Wagre assaulted Nikhil by fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Nikhil called Prashant on telephone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Immediately, Prashant came there on motor cycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He tried to convince those persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those boys were more in number, hence I afraid and went aside.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Pintu Raut took Khanjar from Kulchand and gave blows of Khanjar on chest, stomach (chest side), leg of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Kulchand took that Khanjar and assaulted Prashant, by inflicting blows of Khanjar in any direction.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant received those blows on his hand and shoulder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Rest accused persons assaulted Nikhil by rod and fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant was lying on ground.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Accused Vijay put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on the chest of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Prashant was lying facing his mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Vijay lifted that stone and put that stone on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter Police came there by motorcycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those accused persons ran away." (quoted from deposition of PW 4 Swapnil - paper- book page Nos.540 and 541, Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reading.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">23. This witness PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar has been cross examined in order to impeach his testimony by showing him the omissions and suggestions as follows:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) It was a dark night and there was no electricity supply and, in the result, there was no illumination.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Though he has stated that there was illumination, he did not say it before the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(3) Omission as regards assault on hand and shoulder, the distance between Bhagyanagar Police Station and the place of the incident;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Omission of the fact that Police Constable arrived on the spot where there was no any traffic when the incident occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Visibility of the place of offense from Bhagyanagar Police Station or Octroi Naka.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) He did not go to Police Chowky in the hospital or nearest Police Station or the Police Station on the way.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The oral exchange went on for 10/15 minutes and it was not informed to the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The duration of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">24. PW No.5 Shekhar gives the background of the incident as regards actual assault. He states as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Bunty and Satish were also present and they also assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was iron rod in the hands of Sandeep and Vilas Waghmare. They assaulted to Nikhil and Prashant by that rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Kulchand Gadge gave blows of Khanjar to Prashant in many directions.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was rush and hence I could not see actual incident of other assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant fell on ground in that assault. Accused Vijay Lingayat put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on Prashant. That stone was put on the chest of Prashant. After putting stone, Prashant was lying facing mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again Vijay lifted that stone and put on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant sustained many bleeding injuries and blood was fallen on earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, one policeman came from Taroda Naka. He came on motor cycle. Thereafter, all accused persons fled away from the spot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Swapnil and Nikhil lifted Prashant and took him to hospital by motor cycle. I also followed them to Civil Hospital, Nanded. Doctor examined and reported Prashant dead. The accused persons before the Court are the same.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was light at incident spot from three poles which are standing near pan-stall, hair saloon and power house.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I can tell names of accused persons. They are Vijay Lingayat, Vilas Waghmare, Sandeep Karvande, Kiran Phule, Pintu Raut, Ganesh Madvi, Satish Wagre and Bunty Kamble."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Quoted from deposition of PW 5 Shekhar - paper book page nos. 555 and 556.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience and emphasis.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">25. PW 5 Shekhar has given names of all accused, except accused nos. 4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, and names accused no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth as regards the initial verbal exchange is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">26. In so far as the actual assault is concerned, PW 5 Shekhar names accused no. 1, Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble, No.2 Satish s/o Prakash Wagre, No.4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule, No.6 Vijay @ Anna s/o Chandrakant, No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande, No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth and No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In the cross examination PW 5 Shekhar has replied as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. Answer : I could not see his act due to rush."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In further cross examination this witness narrates that the incident ended within ten minutes. He did not try to catch any of the assailants nor reported the matter to the Police. He is a friend of the victims. The assailants were ten in number and he was frightened.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">27. As regards testimony of PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur is concerned, he involves all accused, however, naming specifically, the accused No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth, No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge having done the assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">28. Prosecution witness No.17 Nikhil Kurdukar who is also injured, in the beginning, gave due account of the event, however, declined to reveal all that he had stated about the incident and, hence, was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. In the cross examination of this witness by the accused, what he has revealed in substance is that:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30 to 35 persons had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident and that a Policeman had arrived on the spot when the assault was just over.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The incident went on for 25 minutes and the Police Station was on the way to the hospital where Prashant was taken.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">29. PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh, eye witnesses, though have been relied upon, their testimonies do not render any valuable assistance to the prosecution.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The contents of these testimonies do not have worth for which those were tendered i.e. the object of prosecution to involve all accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30. Sum effect of the examination in chief and cross examination of PW 17 Nikhil Kurdukar is that he has stated about the involvement of accused nos. 1 Saurabh, No.2 Satish and No.10 Kulchand Gadge by use of knife, stones, etc. though he said that all accused had assaulted him as well as Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">31. When the testimony of all witnesses is seen together as regards the actual fatal assault, the testimony of PW No.4 is crucial.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">32. While testimony of all other witnesses is not of much use qua the for assault on the deceased. The testimonies of all these witnesses can be scrutinized as regards other aspects such as unlawful assembly, common object, etc. Even upon accepting the testimonies of all these witnesses, fervently relied upon by the prosecution, nothing crucial emerges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">33. What can be concluded in favour of the prosecution is that large number of accused persons, whose identification is vague, were present at the scene of offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The evidence does not succeed in proving either common intention or common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">34. The testimony of PW No.4 describes specific acts by the accused No.10 in assaulting the deceased, resulting into fatal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW 4 has done this without any ambiguity. He has stated that Kulchand Gadge, accused No.10, gave the fatal blow.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">35. As it is seen from the record that PW No.4 is the sole witness who has named Kulchand Gadge. However, description of the acts done by Kulchand Gadge is very specific and unambiguous.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">36. The result is that the fatal assault by deadly weapon resulting into death of Prashant is attributable to Kulchand Gadge only. Presence of all other accused, though suggested, cannot be recorded as proved for any specific act, forming offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">37. The evidence tends to prove that there was rivalry between two groups. The evidence, however, does not prove in positive terms that assault by Kulchand Gadge, Accused No.10, was with an intention to murder Prashant. The weapon of assault and location of injury i.e. the chest, is, taken into account, however proves that a person of ordinary prudence was bound to know the result of injury caused by him. The accused could have explained circumstances, if any, as to how he had caused injuries and whether he claimed any private defence or explained the nature and cause of injury which was proved to have been caused by him. It is, thus, evident that the accused No.10 is guilty of offence of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and is liable therefor.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">38. Appeal Nos.580, 601, 619, 627 all of 2009 and appeal Nos. 2 &amp; 5, both of 2010 are allowed. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">39. Appeal No.625/2009 filed by accused No. 10 Kulchand Gadge is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is modified, and instead of Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused No.10 Kulchand Gadge is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 1st part of I.P.C.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">40. Now, we propose to hear the accused No. 10 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">41. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, who appears for the appellant / accused No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge in appeal No.625/2009 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">42. Learned Advocate Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar has urged following points in order to secure leniency for the accused Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the age of the accused, on the date of the incident, was 23 years.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) According to the prosecution, though there is background of rivalry, - considering the age of the accused, he cannot be considered to be a person of political intent with criminal mind. He, therefore, prays for leniency.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">43. Considering that the offence, which this Court has held to be proved, is under Section 304 Part I of IPC, but for the intention, the accused / appellant has saved himself from conviction under Section 302 of IPC yet, when considering the gravity of offence, which does not in any manner get diluted and also, considering the age of the accused, the sentence could not reach life imprisonment.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The accused is, therefore, considered liable for sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand) and three months simple imprisonment for default in payment of fine.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He would be entitled to set off as is available in law under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of MaharashtrA.',
		'sub' => '',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '925218'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 4(25',
			(int) 1 => 'Indian Arms Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 149',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 149 IPC',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 149 IPC',
			(int) 5 => 'Article No.12,19',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 302 of I.P.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 304 1st',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 304',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 302',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1',
			(int) 1 => 'ten',
			(int) 2 => '2',
			(int) 3 => '3.',
			(int) 4 => '341',
			(int) 5 => '323',
			(int) 6 => '504',
			(int) 7 => '506',
			(int) 8 => '324',
			(int) 9 => '147',
			(int) 10 => '148',
			(int) 11 => '149',
			(int) 12 => '4',
			(int) 13 => '5',
			(int) 14 => '6',
			(int) 15 => '1',
			(int) 16 => 'four',
			(int) 17 => '9',
			(int) 18 => '2',
			(int) 19 => '72',
			(int) 20 => '118',
			(int) 21 => '3',
			(int) 22 => '10',
			(int) 23 => '439',
			(int) 24 => '4',
			(int) 25 => '5',
			(int) 26 => '5',
			(int) 27 => '181',
			(int) 28 => '6',
			(int) 29 => '254',
			(int) 30 => 'at least five',
			(int) 31 => '8)',
			(int) 32 => 'one',
			(int) 33 => '8',
			(int) 34 => '1',
			(int) 35 => 'five',
			(int) 36 => '2)(a',
			(int) 37 => '3',
			(int) 38 => '9',
			(int) 39 => '18',
			(int) 40 => '8',
			(int) 41 => '4',
			(int) 42 => '10',
			(int) 43 => '11',
			(int) 44 => '1',
			(int) 45 => '12',
			(int) 46 => '26',
			(int) 47 => '13',
			(int) 48 => '1',
			(int) 49 => '719',
			(int) 50 => 'no.737',
			(int) 51 => '15',
			(int) 52 => '16',
			(int) 53 => '577',
			(int) 54 => '1',
			(int) 55 => '2.',
			(int) 56 => '2',
			(int) 57 => '1 1/2',
			(int) 58 => '3.',
			(int) 59 => '4.',
			(int) 60 => '1 1/2',
			(int) 61 => '5',
			(int) 62 => '6.',
			(int) 63 => '8.',
			(int) 64 => '2',
			(int) 65 => '2',
			(int) 66 => '577',
			(int) 67 => '17',
			(int) 68 => 'No.1',
			(int) 69 => '7',
			(int) 70 => 'No.2',
			(int) 71 => '4',
			(int) 72 => 'No.3',
			(int) 73 => 'No.4',
			(int) 74 => '578',
			(int) 75 => '18',
			(int) 76 => '06',
			(int) 77 => '7',
			(int) 78 => '6',
			(int) 79 => '07',
			(int) 80 => '7',
			(int) 81 => '6',
			(int) 82 => '4',
			(int) 83 => '19',
			(int) 84 => '20',
			(int) 85 => 'No.4',
			(int) 86 => '22',
			(int) 87 => '15 to 20',
			(int) 88 => '541',
			(int) 89 => '23',
			(int) 90 => 'No.4',
			(int) 91 => '1',
			(int) 92 => '2',
			(int) 93 => '4',
			(int) 94 => '5',
			(int) 95 => '6',
			(int) 96 => '8)',
			(int) 97 => '24',
			(int) 98 => '15 to 20',
			(int) 99 => 'three',
			(int) 100 => '555',
			(int) 101 => '556',
			(int) 102 => '25',
			(int) 103 => '4',
			(int) 104 => '26',
			(int) 105 => '1',
			(int) 106 => 'No.2',
			(int) 107 => 'No.8',
			(int) 108 => 'ten',
			(int) 109 => '27',
			(int) 110 => 'No.8',
			(int) 111 => '28',
			(int) 112 => '30 to 35',
			(int) 113 => '29',
			(int) 114 => '30',
			(int) 115 => '1',
			(int) 116 => 'No.2',
			(int) 117 => '31',
			(int) 118 => '32',
			(int) 119 => '33',
			(int) 120 => '34',
			(int) 121 => '37.',
			(int) 122 => 'two',
			(int) 123 => '38',
			(int) 124 => '601',
			(int) 125 => '619',
			(int) 126 => '627',
			(int) 127 => '5',
			(int) 128 => '39',
			(int) 129 => '10',
			(int) 130 => '10',
			(int) 131 => '41',
			(int) 132 => '43.',
			(int) 133 => 'thousand'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Court of Additional Sessions',
			(int) 1 => 'IPC',
			(int) 2 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 3 => 'PW No.17',
			(int) 4 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 5 => 'a Police Constable',
			(int) 6 => 'AIR 1963',
			(int) 7 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 8 => 'Court',
			(int) 9 => 'AIR 1963',
			(int) 10 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 11 => 'the Privy Council',
			(int) 12 => 'State of Uttarakhand',
			(int) 13 => 'AIR 1956',
			(int) 14 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 15 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 16 => 'AIR 1972',
			(int) 17 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 18 => 'The State of U.P.',
			(int) 19 => 'CRI',
			(int) 20 => 'State of Maharashtra',
			(int) 21 => 'U.P.',
			(int) 22 => 'A.P.P.',
			(int) 23 => 'Singh &amp',
			(int) 24 => 'Ors',
			(int) 25 => 'the unlawful assembly',
			(int) 26 => 'AIR 1999',
			(int) 27 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 28 => 'State of Punjab',
			(int) 29 => 'Court',
			(int) 30 => 'Court',
			(int) 31 => 'Court',
			(int) 32 => 'AIR 1997',
			(int) 33 => 'SUPREME COURT',
			(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Yadav',
			(int) 35 => 'State of Bihar',
			(int) 36 => 'PSI',
			(int) 37 => 'A.P.I.',
			(int) 38 => 'Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad',
			(int) 39 => 'PW Seizure',
			(int) 40 => 'PW No.14',
			(int) 41 => 'PW No',
			(int) 42 => 'PW No.5',
			(int) 43 => 'PW No.17 Nikhil s/',
			(int) 44 => 'FIR',
			(int) 45 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 46 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 47 => 'Chemical Analyzer',
			(int) 48 => 'PW No.17',
			(int) 49 => 'PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
			(int) 50 => 'Exh.87',
			(int) 51 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
			(int) 52 => 'PW 9 Dr.',
			(int) 53 => 'Column No.17',
			(int) 54 => 'No.17',
			(int) 55 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 56 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 57 => '-Injury',
			(int) 58 => 'no.1',
			(int) 59 => 'no.2',
			(int) 60 => 'no.1',
			(int) 61 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 62 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 63 => 'no.2',
			(int) 64 => 'Khanjar Art',
			(int) 65 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
			(int) 66 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 67 => 'No.7 Sandeep @',
			(int) 68 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
			(int) 69 => 'Ganesh',
			(int) 70 => 'Santosh Thakur',
			(int) 71 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 72 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 73 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 74 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 75 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 76 => 'the Police.',
			(int) 77 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
			(int) 78 => 'Police Constable',
			(int) 79 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
			(int) 80 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 81 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
			(int) 82 => 'Sandeep',
			(int) 83 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 84 => 'Khanjar',
			(int) 85 => 'Civil Hospital',
			(int) 86 => 'Court',
			(int) 87 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
			(int) 88 => 'Narhari',
			(int) 89 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
			(int) 90 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
			(int) 91 => 'No.4 Ganesh s/',
			(int) 92 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
			(int) 93 => 'Narhari',
			(int) 94 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
			(int) 95 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
			(int) 96 => 'PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur',
			(int) 97 => 'Narhari',
			(int) 98 => 'the Police Station',
			(int) 99 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
			(int) 100 => 'PW 4',
			(int) 101 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 102 => 'Appeal Nos.580',
			(int) 103 => 'Learned Advocate',
			(int) 104 => 'Court',
			(int) 105 => 'IPC',
			(int) 106 => 'IPC'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nanded',
			(int) 1 => 'another V. State of Punjab',
			(int) 2 => 'Mahbub',
			(int) 3 => 'Bihar',
			(int) 4 => 'Panch',
			(int) 5 => 'Panchnama',
			(int) 6 => 'Keshav',
			(int) 7 => 'PW',
			(int) 8 => 'Nos.576',
			(int) 9 => 'no.3',
			(int) 10 => 'no.3',
			(int) 11 => 'PW',
			(int) 12 => 'PW',
			(int) 13 => 'PW',
			(int) 14 => 'Kiran',
			(int) 15 => 'Kulchand',
			(int) 16 => 'Kulchand',
			(int) 17 => 'Nos.540',
			(int) 18 => 'PW',
			(int) 19 => 'Nanded',
			(int) 20 => 'No.10 Kulchand s/',
			(int) 21 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 22 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 23 => 'Kulchand Gadge'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10th Nov.',
			(int) 1 => '1413',
			(int) 2 => '174(1',
			(int) 3 => '2010',
			(int) 4 => '2010',
			(int) 5 => '1179',
			(int) 6 => '2007',
			(int) 7 => '3740',
			(int) 8 => '2010',
			(int) 9 => '3717',
			(int) 10 => '2003',
			(int) 11 => '3876',
			(int) 12 => '1808',
			(int) 13 => 'PW 1',
			(int) 14 => '61',
			(int) 15 => '62',
			(int) 16 => '21',
			(int) 17 => '27',
			(int) 18 => 'PW 3',
			(int) 19 => '14',
			(int) 20 => 'PW 9',
			(int) 21 => '21',
			(int) 22 => '18.11.2007',
			(int) 23 => 'the day',
			(int) 24 => '35',
			(int) 25 => '36',
			(int) 26 => '2009',
			(int) 27 => '2010',
			(int) 28 => 'I.P.C. 40',
			(int) 29 => '42',
			(int) 30 => '23 years',
			(int) 31 => 'ten years',
			(int) 32 => 'three months'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Heard Advocate',
			(int) 1 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
			(int) 2 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 3 => 'Medpallewar',
			(int) 4 => 'Swapnil',
			(int) 5 => 'Patil V. State',
			(int) 6 => 'S.34',
			(int) 7 => 'S.34',
			(int) 8 => 'Mohan Singh',
			(int) 9 => 'S.34',
			(int) 10 => 'S.34',
			(int) 11 => 'Pamma',
			(int) 12 => 'Haryana',
			(int) 13 => 'Baladin',
			(int) 14 => 'Ram Tahal',
			(int) 15 => 'Sudhir Annaji Choudhary',
			(int) 16 => 'Mustaq Alam',
			(int) 17 => 'V. State of',
			(int) 18 => 'Leela Ram v. State',
			(int) 19 => 'Sucha Singh',
			(int) 20 => 'Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
			(int) 21 => 'Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
			(int) 22 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
			(int) 23 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
			(int) 24 => 'Anil Mahadu Pohre',
			(int) 25 => 'No.12',
			(int) 26 => 'Kamlakar Govindrao Kale',
			(int) 27 => 'Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar',
			(int) 28 => 'Mukundrao Ghule',
			(int) 29 => 'Examined',
			(int) 30 => 'Narsareddy Satpalwar',
			(int) 31 => 'Marotirao Dongaonkar',
			(int) 32 => 'Raut',
			(int) 33 => 'Balu Raut',
			(int) 34 => 'Ambadas Dhone',
			(int) 35 => 'Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao',
			(int) 36 => 'Exh.89',
			(int) 37 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
			(int) 38 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
			(int) 39 => 'Vilas Gangaram Waghmare',
			(int) 40 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
			(int) 41 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
			(int) 42 => 'Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
			(int) 43 => 'no.576',
			(int) 44 => 'Vithal Pratwagh',
			(int) 45 => 'Vithal',
			(int) 46 => 'no.8',
			(int) 47 => 'Vithal',
			(int) 48 => 'Vithal',
			(int) 49 => 'No.4 Swapnil',
			(int) 50 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
			(int) 51 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
			(int) 52 => '4 Swapnil',
			(int) 53 => 'Ashwin Shinde',
			(int) 54 => 'Mahesh Thakur',
			(int) 55 => 'Ashwin',
			(int) 56 => 'Mahesh',
			(int) 57 => 'Jangamwadi',
			(int) 58 => 'Pintu Raut',
			(int) 59 => 'Satish Wagre',
			(int) 60 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
			(int) 61 => 'Anil Ghongde',
			(int) 62 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
			(int) 63 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 64 => 'Shekhar Bhalerao',
			(int) 65 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 66 => 'Satish Wagre',
			(int) 67 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 68 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 69 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 70 => 'Raut',
			(int) 71 => 'Kulchand',
			(int) 72 => 'Vijay',
			(int) 73 => 'Vijay',
			(int) 74 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
			(int) 75 => 'Octroi Naka',
			(int) 76 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 77 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
			(int) 78 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 79 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
			(int) 80 => 'Vijay',
			(int) 81 => 'Taroda Naka',
			(int) 82 => 'Swapnil',
			(int) 83 => 'Nikhil',
			(int) 84 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
			(int) 85 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
			(int) 86 => 'Sandeep Karvande',
			(int) 87 => 'Pintu Raut',
			(int) 88 => 'Satish Wagre',
			(int) 89 => 'Shriram Madavi',
			(int) 90 => 'no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu',
			(int) 91 => 'Rauth',
			(int) 92 => 'Saurabh @ Banti s/',
			(int) 93 => 'Shriram Madavi',
			(int) 94 => 'No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule',
			(int) 95 => 'No.6 Vijay @ Anna',
			(int) 96 => 'No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy',
			(int) 97 => 'Rauth',
			(int) 98 => 'Raut',
			(int) 99 => 'Rauth',
			(int) 100 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
			(int) 101 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
			(int) 102 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 103 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
			(int) 104 => 'Accused No.10',
			(int) 105 => 'Nos',
			(int) 106 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar',
			(int) 107 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
			(int) 108 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 1 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 2 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 3 => 'PW 9',
			(int) 4 => 'PW 9',
			(int) 5 => 'PW No.9',
			(int) 6 => 'PW 17',
			(int) 7 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 8 => 'PW No.4'
		),
		'FAC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Accused No.7',
			(int) 1 => 'PW Nos',
			(int) 2 => 'PW No.7 Nilesh',
			(int) 3 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
			(int) 4 => 'PW 4 Swapnil',
			(int) 5 => 'PW 5 Shekhar - paper',
			(int) 6 => 'Prakash Wagre',
			(int) 7 => 'No.10',
			(int) 8 => 'PW No.4',
			(int) 9 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 10 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
			(int) 11 => 'No.10 Kulchand Gadge'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'S.302',
			(int) 1 => 'Satish',
			(int) 2 => 'Satish'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'fourth',
			(int) 1 => 'firstly'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Vs',
			(int) 1 => 'Vs',
			(int) 2 => 'no.1',
			(int) 3 => 'Bunty Kamble',
			(int) 4 => 'Bunty',
			(int) 5 => 'Bunty Kamble',
			(int) 6 => 'Bunty Kamble'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'PW No.10',
			(int) 1 => 'PW No.3',
			(int) 2 => 'Prashant Narsing Medpallewar',
			(int) 3 => 'Bunty and Satish'
		),
		'QUANTITY' => array(
			(int) 0 => '6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm',
			(int) 1 => '1 cm',
			(int) 2 => '1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm',
			(int) 3 => '2 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 4 => '6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm',
			(int) 5 => '5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm',
			(int) 6 => '3 x 2',
			(int) 7 => '1/2 cm',
			(int) 8 => '1/2 cm'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'a dark night',
			(int) 1 => '10/15 minutes',
			(int) 2 => 'ten minutes',
			(int) 3 => '25 minutes'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kulchand'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '925218',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 of 2009',
			'appellant' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade.',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.',
			'casenote' => '
[A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.] All accused persons flocked there. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. (e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses.  (i) Medical witnesses: Police witnesses: Panch witnesses: Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. (a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. 8. (Witness declared hostile) accused. Eye witnesses:- Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. -Injury No.3 is vertical injury. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh. All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant. Those accused persons ran away. I can tell names of accused persons. Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.
 ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2011-10-20',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">JUDGMENT:( Per A.H.JOSHI, J.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered severe injuries and, ultimately, died.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocates for various appellants have advanced submissions in support of appeals. It will be useful to summarize those as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) There is variation in the statements of witnesses and the prosecution story does not come forward consistently and coherently. PW No.17, star eye witness and the complainant did not support the prosecution and is declared hostile.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The prosecution has not come forward with any evidence whatsoever to prove any plan, pre-meditation or any other evidence, proving meeting of minds for proof of common object of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Recovery of weapon has come under doubt and, therefore, use of weapon by particular accused is not proved.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) If evidence is seen from any angle, common intention to kill deceased is not even suggested, much less proved. The incident must have been a matter of sudden fight, some provocation, etc. which was not proved by the prosecution and hence guilt of a particular accused or of unlawful assembly and, that too, of murdering, is not proved. No specific role has been attributed to the accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) There are various omissions and contradictions in the versions of the witnesses. The case turns out to be one based on sole testimony of PW No.4. Moreover, there are circumstances which falsify the story, considering proximity of the Police Station, and failure to report the offence immediately, arrival of a Police Constable on the spot, and failure to disclose this fact,etc. In the result, the case, which is totally based on testimony of PW No.4, Swapnil, would not tend to prove the offence of unlawful assembly and, hence, barely on suspicion, the accused cannot be convicted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Presence as well as role of Accused No.7 is not proved and, therefore, he cannot be convicted for any offence whatsoever. (g) Alternatively, even if it is proved to be a case of unlawful assembly, and that any proof of accused responsible vicariously for act of anyone who is member of assembly, even then, severity of sentence would vary on exact role played by each accused; as far as conviction and sentence of each accused is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(h) In absence of evidence of specific act by a particular accused, may be technical, the accused may be held guilty of being a member of unlawful assembly; yet, he cannot be sentenced with the same severity with which the main assailant would be dealt with. So long as the prosecution story proceeds on the basis that a particular accused has used deadly weapon, even if unlawful assembly is proved and any instigation, etc. by other accused is not proved, ipso facto, it cannot be held to be an unlawful assembly to have common object of murdering.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the result, the trial has to result in acquittal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Advocates for appellants have placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1413 (Krishna Govind Patil V. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Plan must precede the act constituting the offence. If that be so, before a Court can convict a person under S.302, read with S.34, provided that it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When four persons were charged under S.302 read with S.34 and are acquitted, fourth cannot be convicted for having committed the offence along with one or more of the acquitted persons. 9</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 174(1) (Mohan Singh and another V. State of Punjab) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The acts may be different, may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. It is now well settled that the common intention required by S.34 is different from the same intention or similar intention. As has been observed by the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, 72 Ind App 148 : (AIR 1945 PC 118), common intention within the meaning of S.34 implies a pre-arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan and that the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(3) (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 439 (Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) (2010) 5 SCC 81</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Whenever a court convicts any person of an offence with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the assembly must be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but that in pursuance of such common object the offence was committed. There is no manner of doubt that before recording the conviction under Section 149 IPC, the essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC must be established.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 181 (Baladin and others Vs. State of U.P.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Mere spectators had to be distinguished from members of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 254 (V 59 C 57) (Ram Tahal and others Vs. The State of U.P.) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For fixing constructive criminal liability under S.149 on members of an unlawful assembly the court must find with certainty that there were at least five persons sharing the common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) 2011 ALL MR (CRI) 1179 (Sudhir Annaji Choudhary and others vs. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Benefit of doubt could essentially go in favour of the accused, whose identity as a member of an unlawful assembly comes in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While conviction of the main accused may entail a capital punishment, it would not so occur in case of accused whose role was subsidiary and not concurrent with the overt act of the accused liable for severest of punishments.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) 2007 CRI.L.J. 3740 (State of U.P. v. Mustaq Alam) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When oral evidence of a witness contradicted by medical evidence, the very presence of such witness may come in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned A.P.P., in reply, has argued as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(a) It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove prior meeting of minds to prove the common object and it would suffice to prove that the assembly had common object and it was illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Any group of persons, which, on its inception may not be an unlawful assembly, would turn out to be an unlawful assembly, having continued and gained common object, which is illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Mathematical or geometric accuracy is not expected from the witnesses, who are laymen. What has to be seen is the totality of the impression that is portrayed, consequent upon observation of tenor of the witness and the fact as to truthfulness of version of the witness. Minor discrepancies would never take away the worthiness of the evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) On facts, the prosecution story, which is based on the oral evidence as to the presence of the accused persons, presence of all witnesses is proved; omission of some of the witnesses in naming few amongst them, by itself, would not result in destroying worthiness of the testimony of the witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. Even if one witness proves that the accused persons were present, they had marched with a common intention and common object, and few amongst those were not sheer passers-by or witnesses standing by the side, and rather participated in the act. All of them become members of the unlawful assembly, and have become liable for act of even one amongst them, who has caused the murder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) The omissions and contradictions relied upon and pointed by the defense do not result in destroying worth of the witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved its case and conviction deserves to be maintained.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1) 2010 CRI.L.J.3854 (Sikandar Singh &amp; Ors. V. State of Bihar) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">A `common object' does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The `common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the crime, are some of the relevant considerations.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2)(a) AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3717 (Leela Ram v. State of Haryana) and</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) 2003 CRI.L.J. 3876</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sucha Singh and another vs. State of Punjab) Propositions:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations : whereas some become speechless, some start wailing some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3) AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1808 (Nathuni Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and another.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Propositions:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Where assailants are not strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers, even in less or full illumination, the accused may be identified.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">9. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. The witnesses are broadly classified as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(i) Medical witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No 9 : Dr.Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh. (b) PW No.10: Dr.Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge. (c) PW No.16: Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare (d) PW No.18: Dr.Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Police witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No.6 : Anil Mahadu Pohre, Constable. (b) PW No.12: Kamlakar Govindrao Kale, PSI. (c) PW No.13: Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar, Lady Police Constable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.15: Uttam Mukundrao Ghule, A.P.I.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Panch witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. No.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. Inquest Panchnama (Exh.58)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Akash Narsareddy Satpalwar, PW 2. Panchnama of seizure of clothes (Exh.60, 61, 62)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Article No.12,19, 21 and 27)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Harish Marotirao Dongaonkar, PW 3. Recovery Panchnama ( Exh.68,69,70)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) Nilesh Bhanudasrao Gite, PW 7. Involvement of Pintu Raut and Balu Raut in planning to assault somebody and identity of Ambadas Dhone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Dnyaneshwar Ganpatrao Gaikwad, PW Seizure panchnama of clothes of</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. (Witness declared hostile) accused.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(iv) Witnesses on other aspects:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW No.14 (Exh.94) Narsing Naganna Medpallewar, father of deceased Prashant, proved earlier complaint in relation to a quarrel.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(v) Eye witnesses:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No. 4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) PW No.5 Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao (Exh.72).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur ( Exh.89) and,</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.17 Nikhil s/o Madhukar Kurdukar (Exh.129).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">10. The investigation relating to recording of FIR and recording of Panchnama is formal in nature. Discussion on these matters in details, would be of no much use in finding out which facts are proved, in view of the number of eye witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">11. The inquest and spot panchnamas, are not in serious dispute. The matters of seizure of the Khanjar, etc. are challenged by cross examination of PW Nos. 1 Keshav, PW No.2 Akash and PW No.3 Harish and the cross examination is not of much use. The recovery of Khanjar can thus be regarded as proved. Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. Any further discussion in relation to this evidence will not be of much need.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">12. The report of Chemical Analyzer, pertains to the blood stains found on 26 items forming part of evidence, gathered during investigation. The results being "inconclusive", any further discussion is unwarranted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">13. The injuries on the person of PW No.17 Nikhil Madhukar Kurdukar are proved by PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge, Medical Officer, whose testimony is at Exh.87, page No.593 and onwards.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Injuries suffered by accused No. 1 Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble and No.9 Vilas Gangaram Waghmare are proved by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16, Exh.126, page no. 719 and onwards. Injuries to PW No.18 Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte, Exh.134, page no.737 and onwards, are simple in nature.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">14. The injuries suffered by deceased Prashant Narsing Medpallewar are seen from the post mortem report (Exh.84, page No.583) and are proved by PW 9 Dr.Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh (Exh.83, page no.576 and onwards).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">15. The cause of death of Prashant Medpallewar is narrated in the post mortem examination report at page no.583 which reads as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Cause of death is due to cardiac arrest due to the stab injury to heart with multiple injuries on body with hypo-volumic shock."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from post mortem report, page No.589 of paper-book)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">16. PW No.9 Dr.Vithal Pratwagh has reproduced the injuries suffered by deceased Prashant in his testimony which correspond to Column No.17 of post mortem examination report (Page Nos.576 and 577). Those injuries read as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"1. A stab wound over left middle chest 6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. A wound over the left chest at Clavical region; 2 x 1 1/2 x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. A wound over the left lateral elbow 1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. A wound on below over the left elbow 1 1/2 x 2 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. A wound on lateral forearm 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. A wound on left axilary region 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm - tissue dead.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. A wound perforated on left sub costal lateral on omentum is out from wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. A wound over the right shoulder 2 x 2 x 1/2 cm."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of PW 9, at paper book page Nos.576 and 577.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">17. As regards the weapon, which was possibly used for causing the injuries referred to in column No.17, PW No.9 Dr.Vithal has deposed as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" -External injury No.1 and 7 are possible by Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury No.2 may be possible by dropping a big stone on chest.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 may be possible by blows of Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.3 is vertical injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.4 is an horizontal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">External injury No.5 may be possible by rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury no.8 may be possible by rod."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of Dr.Vithal, PW 9, paper-book page No.577 578.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">18. PW 9 Dr. Vithal then proceeds to opine the adequacy of injuries to cause death. Relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"06. External injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death. Due to external injuries no.1 and 7 there is possibility of oozing lot of blood. External injuries no.2 and 6 shows that firstly deceased was assaulted by sharp object and then stone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">07. External injuries no.1 and 7 may be possible by Khanjar Art.no.34. Khanjar now shown to me."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.2 and 6 may be possible by Art.no.3 stone, now shown to me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 are possible by Khanjar Art.No.34." (quoted from deposition of PW 9 paper-book page No.578 of paper- book.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">19. The testimony of PW No.9, has been done in searching cross examination conducted by different Advocates for the accused persons. The testimony is not shattered as regards probable weapon of assault and as to the cause of death assigned in the post mortem report.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">20. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">21. The eye witness on which the prosecution case entirely stands is PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71). PW No.4 is also injured and whose injuries are certified by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">22. PW 4 Swapnil has narrated the initial incident as to what happened in relation to throwing of the stone on the motor cycle and the quarrel that had followed thereon. He names all accused, except accused No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande and describes the situation in his words as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Incident took place on 18.11.2007.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">On the day, in the evening, I was returning from work.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At workshop T-point, Ashwin Shinde and Mahesh Thakur met me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, myself, Ashwin and Mahesh were proceeding towards Jangamwadi on foot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We reached at Jangamwadi Chowk square.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At that time, Pintu Raut, Bunty Kamble, Satish Wagre, Vijay Lingayat, Sandy, Anil Ghongde, Vilas Waghmare, Kiran and Ganesh and Kulchand were talking to Nikhil Kurdukar, Santosh Thakur and Shekhar Bhalerao.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, Bunty and Satish asked Nikhil why he gave abuse to them and pushed him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We tried to convince them, but they did not listen us.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Bunty Kamble and Satish Wagre assaulted Nikhil by fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Nikhil called Prashant on telephone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Immediately, Prashant came there on motor cycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He tried to convince those persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those boys were more in number, hence I afraid and went aside.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Pintu Raut took Khanjar from Kulchand and gave blows of Khanjar on chest, stomach (chest side), leg of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Kulchand took that Khanjar and assaulted Prashant, by inflicting blows of Khanjar in any direction.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant received those blows on his hand and shoulder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Rest accused persons assaulted Nikhil by rod and fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant was lying on ground.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Accused Vijay put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on the chest of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Prashant was lying facing his mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Vijay lifted that stone and put that stone on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter Police came there by motorcycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those accused persons ran away." (quoted from deposition of PW 4 Swapnil - paper- book page Nos.540 and 541, Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reading.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">23. This witness PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar has been cross examined in order to impeach his testimony by showing him the omissions and suggestions as follows:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) It was a dark night and there was no electricity supply and, in the result, there was no illumination.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Though he has stated that there was illumination, he did not say it before the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(3) Omission as regards assault on hand and shoulder, the distance between Bhagyanagar Police Station and the place of the incident;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Omission of the fact that Police Constable arrived on the spot where there was no any traffic when the incident occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Visibility of the place of offense from Bhagyanagar Police Station or Octroi Naka.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) He did not go to Police Chowky in the hospital or nearest Police Station or the Police Station on the way.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The oral exchange went on for 10/15 minutes and it was not informed to the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The duration of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">24. PW No.5 Shekhar gives the background of the incident as regards actual assault. He states as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Bunty and Satish were also present and they also assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was iron rod in the hands of Sandeep and Vilas Waghmare. They assaulted to Nikhil and Prashant by that rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Kulchand Gadge gave blows of Khanjar to Prashant in many directions.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was rush and hence I could not see actual incident of other assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant fell on ground in that assault. Accused Vijay Lingayat put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on Prashant. That stone was put on the chest of Prashant. After putting stone, Prashant was lying facing mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again Vijay lifted that stone and put on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant sustained many bleeding injuries and blood was fallen on earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, one policeman came from Taroda Naka. He came on motor cycle. Thereafter, all accused persons fled away from the spot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Swapnil and Nikhil lifted Prashant and took him to hospital by motor cycle. I also followed them to Civil Hospital, Nanded. Doctor examined and reported Prashant dead. The accused persons before the Court are the same.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was light at incident spot from three poles which are standing near pan-stall, hair saloon and power house.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I can tell names of accused persons. They are Vijay Lingayat, Vilas Waghmare, Sandeep Karvande, Kiran Phule, Pintu Raut, Ganesh Madvi, Satish Wagre and Bunty Kamble."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Quoted from deposition of PW 5 Shekhar - paper book page nos. 555 and 556.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience and emphasis.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">25. PW 5 Shekhar has given names of all accused, except accused nos. 4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, and names accused no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth as regards the initial verbal exchange is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">26. In so far as the actual assault is concerned, PW 5 Shekhar names accused no. 1, Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble, No.2 Satish s/o Prakash Wagre, No.4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule, No.6 Vijay @ Anna s/o Chandrakant, No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande, No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth and No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In the cross examination PW 5 Shekhar has replied as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. Answer : I could not see his act due to rush."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In further cross examination this witness narrates that the incident ended within ten minutes. He did not try to catch any of the assailants nor reported the matter to the Police. He is a friend of the victims. The assailants were ten in number and he was frightened.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">27. As regards testimony of PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur is concerned, he involves all accused, however, naming specifically, the accused No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth, No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge having done the assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">28. Prosecution witness No.17 Nikhil Kurdukar who is also injured, in the beginning, gave due account of the event, however, declined to reveal all that he had stated about the incident and, hence, was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. In the cross examination of this witness by the accused, what he has revealed in substance is that:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30 to 35 persons had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident and that a Policeman had arrived on the spot when the assault was just over.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The incident went on for 25 minutes and the Police Station was on the way to the hospital where Prashant was taken.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">29. PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh, eye witnesses, though have been relied upon, their testimonies do not render any valuable assistance to the prosecution.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The contents of these testimonies do not have worth for which those were tendered i.e. the object of prosecution to involve all accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30. Sum effect of the examination in chief and cross examination of PW 17 Nikhil Kurdukar is that he has stated about the involvement of accused nos. 1 Saurabh, No.2 Satish and No.10 Kulchand Gadge by use of knife, stones, etc. though he said that all accused had assaulted him as well as Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">31. When the testimony of all witnesses is seen together as regards the actual fatal assault, the testimony of PW No.4 is crucial.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">32. While testimony of all other witnesses is not of much use qua the for assault on the deceased. The testimonies of all these witnesses can be scrutinized as regards other aspects such as unlawful assembly, common object, etc. Even upon accepting the testimonies of all these witnesses, fervently relied upon by the prosecution, nothing crucial emerges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">33. What can be concluded in favour of the prosecution is that large number of accused persons, whose identification is vague, were present at the scene of offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The evidence does not succeed in proving either common intention or common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">34. The testimony of PW No.4 describes specific acts by the accused No.10 in assaulting the deceased, resulting into fatal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW 4 has done this without any ambiguity. He has stated that Kulchand Gadge, accused No.10, gave the fatal blow.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">35. As it is seen from the record that PW No.4 is the sole witness who has named Kulchand Gadge. However, description of the acts done by Kulchand Gadge is very specific and unambiguous.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">36. The result is that the fatal assault by deadly weapon resulting into death of Prashant is attributable to Kulchand Gadge only. Presence of all other accused, though suggested, cannot be recorded as proved for any specific act, forming offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">37. The evidence tends to prove that there was rivalry between two groups. The evidence, however, does not prove in positive terms that assault by Kulchand Gadge, Accused No.10, was with an intention to murder Prashant. The weapon of assault and location of injury i.e. the chest, is, taken into account, however proves that a person of ordinary prudence was bound to know the result of injury caused by him. The accused could have explained circumstances, if any, as to how he had caused injuries and whether he claimed any private defence or explained the nature and cause of injury which was proved to have been caused by him. It is, thus, evident that the accused No.10 is guilty of offence of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and is liable therefor.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">38. Appeal Nos.580, 601, 619, 627 all of 2009 and appeal Nos. 2 &amp; 5, both of 2010 are allowed. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">39. Appeal No.625/2009 filed by accused No. 10 Kulchand Gadge is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is modified, and instead of Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused No.10 Kulchand Gadge is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 1st part of I.P.C.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">40. Now, we propose to hear the accused No. 10 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">41. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, who appears for the appellant / accused No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge in appeal No.625/2009 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">42. Learned Advocate Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar has urged following points in order to secure leniency for the accused Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the age of the accused, on the date of the incident, was 23 years.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) According to the prosecution, though there is background of rivalry, - considering the age of the accused, he cannot be considered to be a person of political intent with criminal mind. He, therefore, prays for leniency.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">43. Considering that the offence, which this Court has held to be proved, is under Section 304 Part I of IPC, but for the intention, the accused / appellant has saved himself from conviction under Section 302 of IPC yet, when considering the gravity of offence, which does not in any manner get diluted and also, considering the age of the accused, the sentence could not reach life imprisonment.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The accused is, therefore, considered liable for sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand) and three months simple imprisonment for default in payment of fine.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He would be entitled to set off as is available in law under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => '',
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of MaharashtrA.',
			'sub' => '',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '925218'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 4(25',
		(int) 1 => 'Indian Arms Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 149',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 149 IPC',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 149 IPC',
		(int) 5 => 'Article No.12,19',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 302 of I.P.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 304 1st',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 304',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 302',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1',
		(int) 1 => 'ten',
		(int) 2 => '2',
		(int) 3 => '3.',
		(int) 4 => '341',
		(int) 5 => '323',
		(int) 6 => '504',
		(int) 7 => '506',
		(int) 8 => '324',
		(int) 9 => '147',
		(int) 10 => '148',
		(int) 11 => '149',
		(int) 12 => '4',
		(int) 13 => '5',
		(int) 14 => '6',
		(int) 15 => '1',
		(int) 16 => 'four',
		(int) 17 => '9',
		(int) 18 => '2',
		(int) 19 => '72',
		(int) 20 => '118',
		(int) 21 => '3',
		(int) 22 => '10',
		(int) 23 => '439',
		(int) 24 => '4',
		(int) 25 => '5',
		(int) 26 => '5',
		(int) 27 => '181',
		(int) 28 => '6',
		(int) 29 => '254',
		(int) 30 => 'at least five',
		(int) 31 => '8)',
		(int) 32 => 'one',
		(int) 33 => '8',
		(int) 34 => '1',
		(int) 35 => 'five',
		(int) 36 => '2)(a',
		(int) 37 => '3',
		(int) 38 => '9',
		(int) 39 => '18',
		(int) 40 => '8',
		(int) 41 => '4',
		(int) 42 => '10',
		(int) 43 => '11',
		(int) 44 => '1',
		(int) 45 => '12',
		(int) 46 => '26',
		(int) 47 => '13',
		(int) 48 => '1',
		(int) 49 => '719',
		(int) 50 => 'no.737',
		(int) 51 => '15',
		(int) 52 => '16',
		(int) 53 => '577',
		(int) 54 => '1',
		(int) 55 => '2.',
		(int) 56 => '2',
		(int) 57 => '1 1/2',
		(int) 58 => '3.',
		(int) 59 => '4.',
		(int) 60 => '1 1/2',
		(int) 61 => '5',
		(int) 62 => '6.',
		(int) 63 => '8.',
		(int) 64 => '2',
		(int) 65 => '2',
		(int) 66 => '577',
		(int) 67 => '17',
		(int) 68 => 'No.1',
		(int) 69 => '7',
		(int) 70 => 'No.2',
		(int) 71 => '4',
		(int) 72 => 'No.3',
		(int) 73 => 'No.4',
		(int) 74 => '578',
		(int) 75 => '18',
		(int) 76 => '06',
		(int) 77 => '7',
		(int) 78 => '6',
		(int) 79 => '07',
		(int) 80 => '7',
		(int) 81 => '6',
		(int) 82 => '4',
		(int) 83 => '19',
		(int) 84 => '20',
		(int) 85 => 'No.4',
		(int) 86 => '22',
		(int) 87 => '15 to 20',
		(int) 88 => '541',
		(int) 89 => '23',
		(int) 90 => 'No.4',
		(int) 91 => '1',
		(int) 92 => '2',
		(int) 93 => '4',
		(int) 94 => '5',
		(int) 95 => '6',
		(int) 96 => '8)',
		(int) 97 => '24',
		(int) 98 => '15 to 20',
		(int) 99 => 'three',
		(int) 100 => '555',
		(int) 101 => '556',
		(int) 102 => '25',
		(int) 103 => '4',
		(int) 104 => '26',
		(int) 105 => '1',
		(int) 106 => 'No.2',
		(int) 107 => 'No.8',
		(int) 108 => 'ten',
		(int) 109 => '27',
		(int) 110 => 'No.8',
		(int) 111 => '28',
		(int) 112 => '30 to 35',
		(int) 113 => '29',
		(int) 114 => '30',
		(int) 115 => '1',
		(int) 116 => 'No.2',
		(int) 117 => '31',
		(int) 118 => '32',
		(int) 119 => '33',
		(int) 120 => '34',
		(int) 121 => '37.',
		(int) 122 => 'two',
		(int) 123 => '38',
		(int) 124 => '601',
		(int) 125 => '619',
		(int) 126 => '627',
		(int) 127 => '5',
		(int) 128 => '39',
		(int) 129 => '10',
		(int) 130 => '10',
		(int) 131 => '41',
		(int) 132 => '43.',
		(int) 133 => 'thousand'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Court of Additional Sessions',
		(int) 1 => 'IPC',
		(int) 2 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 3 => 'PW No.17',
		(int) 4 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 5 => 'a Police Constable',
		(int) 6 => 'AIR 1963',
		(int) 7 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 8 => 'Court',
		(int) 9 => 'AIR 1963',
		(int) 10 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 11 => 'the Privy Council',
		(int) 12 => 'State of Uttarakhand',
		(int) 13 => 'AIR 1956',
		(int) 14 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 15 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 16 => 'AIR 1972',
		(int) 17 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 18 => 'The State of U.P.',
		(int) 19 => 'CRI',
		(int) 20 => 'State of Maharashtra',
		(int) 21 => 'U.P.',
		(int) 22 => 'A.P.P.',
		(int) 23 => 'Singh &amp',
		(int) 24 => 'Ors',
		(int) 25 => 'the unlawful assembly',
		(int) 26 => 'AIR 1999',
		(int) 27 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 28 => 'State of Punjab',
		(int) 29 => 'Court',
		(int) 30 => 'Court',
		(int) 31 => 'Court',
		(int) 32 => 'AIR 1997',
		(int) 33 => 'SUPREME COURT',
		(int) 34 => 'Nathuni Yadav',
		(int) 35 => 'State of Bihar',
		(int) 36 => 'PSI',
		(int) 37 => 'A.P.I.',
		(int) 38 => 'Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad',
		(int) 39 => 'PW Seizure',
		(int) 40 => 'PW No.14',
		(int) 41 => 'PW No',
		(int) 42 => 'PW No.5',
		(int) 43 => 'PW No.17 Nikhil s/',
		(int) 44 => 'FIR',
		(int) 45 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 46 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 47 => 'Chemical Analyzer',
		(int) 48 => 'PW No.17',
		(int) 49 => 'PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
		(int) 50 => 'Exh.87',
		(int) 51 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
		(int) 52 => 'PW 9 Dr.',
		(int) 53 => 'Column No.17',
		(int) 54 => 'No.17',
		(int) 55 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 56 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 57 => '-Injury',
		(int) 58 => 'no.1',
		(int) 59 => 'no.2',
		(int) 60 => 'no.1',
		(int) 61 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 62 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 63 => 'no.2',
		(int) 64 => 'Khanjar Art',
		(int) 65 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
		(int) 66 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 67 => 'No.7 Sandeep @',
		(int) 68 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
		(int) 69 => 'Ganesh',
		(int) 70 => 'Santosh Thakur',
		(int) 71 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 72 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 73 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 74 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 75 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 76 => 'the Police.',
		(int) 77 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
		(int) 78 => 'Police Constable',
		(int) 79 => 'Bhagyanagar Police Station',
		(int) 80 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 81 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
		(int) 82 => 'Sandeep',
		(int) 83 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 84 => 'Khanjar',
		(int) 85 => 'Civil Hospital',
		(int) 86 => 'Court',
		(int) 87 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
		(int) 88 => 'Narhari',
		(int) 89 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
		(int) 90 => 'Deeliprao Kamble',
		(int) 91 => 'No.4 Ganesh s/',
		(int) 92 => 'Bhagwanrao Karwande',
		(int) 93 => 'Narhari',
		(int) 94 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
		(int) 95 => 'PW 5 Shekhar',
		(int) 96 => 'PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur',
		(int) 97 => 'Narhari',
		(int) 98 => 'the Police Station',
		(int) 99 => 'PW No.5 Shekhar',
		(int) 100 => 'PW 4',
		(int) 101 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 102 => 'Appeal Nos.580',
		(int) 103 => 'Learned Advocate',
		(int) 104 => 'Court',
		(int) 105 => 'IPC',
		(int) 106 => 'IPC'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nanded',
		(int) 1 => 'another V. State of Punjab',
		(int) 2 => 'Mahbub',
		(int) 3 => 'Bihar',
		(int) 4 => 'Panch',
		(int) 5 => 'Panchnama',
		(int) 6 => 'Keshav',
		(int) 7 => 'PW',
		(int) 8 => 'Nos.576',
		(int) 9 => 'no.3',
		(int) 10 => 'no.3',
		(int) 11 => 'PW',
		(int) 12 => 'PW',
		(int) 13 => 'PW',
		(int) 14 => 'Kiran',
		(int) 15 => 'Kulchand',
		(int) 16 => 'Kulchand',
		(int) 17 => 'Nos.540',
		(int) 18 => 'PW',
		(int) 19 => 'Nanded',
		(int) 20 => 'No.10 Kulchand s/',
		(int) 21 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 22 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 23 => 'Kulchand Gadge'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10th Nov.',
		(int) 1 => '1413',
		(int) 2 => '174(1',
		(int) 3 => '2010',
		(int) 4 => '2010',
		(int) 5 => '1179',
		(int) 6 => '2007',
		(int) 7 => '3740',
		(int) 8 => '2010',
		(int) 9 => '3717',
		(int) 10 => '2003',
		(int) 11 => '3876',
		(int) 12 => '1808',
		(int) 13 => 'PW 1',
		(int) 14 => '61',
		(int) 15 => '62',
		(int) 16 => '21',
		(int) 17 => '27',
		(int) 18 => 'PW 3',
		(int) 19 => '14',
		(int) 20 => 'PW 9',
		(int) 21 => '21',
		(int) 22 => '18.11.2007',
		(int) 23 => 'the day',
		(int) 24 => '35',
		(int) 25 => '36',
		(int) 26 => '2009',
		(int) 27 => '2010',
		(int) 28 => 'I.P.C. 40',
		(int) 29 => '42',
		(int) 30 => '23 years',
		(int) 31 => 'ten years',
		(int) 32 => 'three months'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Heard Advocate',
		(int) 1 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
		(int) 2 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 3 => 'Medpallewar',
		(int) 4 => 'Swapnil',
		(int) 5 => 'Patil V. State',
		(int) 6 => 'S.34',
		(int) 7 => 'S.34',
		(int) 8 => 'Mohan Singh',
		(int) 9 => 'S.34',
		(int) 10 => 'S.34',
		(int) 11 => 'Pamma',
		(int) 12 => 'Haryana',
		(int) 13 => 'Baladin',
		(int) 14 => 'Ram Tahal',
		(int) 15 => 'Sudhir Annaji Choudhary',
		(int) 16 => 'Mustaq Alam',
		(int) 17 => 'V. State of',
		(int) 18 => 'Leela Ram v. State',
		(int) 19 => 'Sucha Singh',
		(int) 20 => 'Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
		(int) 21 => 'Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge',
		(int) 22 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
		(int) 23 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
		(int) 24 => 'Anil Mahadu Pohre',
		(int) 25 => 'No.12',
		(int) 26 => 'Kamlakar Govindrao Kale',
		(int) 27 => 'Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar',
		(int) 28 => 'Mukundrao Ghule',
		(int) 29 => 'Examined',
		(int) 30 => 'Narsareddy Satpalwar',
		(int) 31 => 'Marotirao Dongaonkar',
		(int) 32 => 'Raut',
		(int) 33 => 'Balu Raut',
		(int) 34 => 'Ambadas Dhone',
		(int) 35 => 'Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao',
		(int) 36 => 'Exh.89',
		(int) 37 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
		(int) 38 => 'Madhukar Kurdukar',
		(int) 39 => 'Vilas Gangaram Waghmare',
		(int) 40 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
		(int) 41 => 'Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte',
		(int) 42 => 'Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh',
		(int) 43 => 'no.576',
		(int) 44 => 'Vithal Pratwagh',
		(int) 45 => 'Vithal',
		(int) 46 => 'no.8',
		(int) 47 => 'Vithal',
		(int) 48 => 'Vithal',
		(int) 49 => 'No.4 Swapnil',
		(int) 50 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
		(int) 51 => 'Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare',
		(int) 52 => '4 Swapnil',
		(int) 53 => 'Ashwin Shinde',
		(int) 54 => 'Mahesh Thakur',
		(int) 55 => 'Ashwin',
		(int) 56 => 'Mahesh',
		(int) 57 => 'Jangamwadi',
		(int) 58 => 'Pintu Raut',
		(int) 59 => 'Satish Wagre',
		(int) 60 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
		(int) 61 => 'Anil Ghongde',
		(int) 62 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
		(int) 63 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 64 => 'Shekhar Bhalerao',
		(int) 65 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 66 => 'Satish Wagre',
		(int) 67 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 68 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 69 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 70 => 'Raut',
		(int) 71 => 'Kulchand',
		(int) 72 => 'Vijay',
		(int) 73 => 'Vijay',
		(int) 74 => 'Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar',
		(int) 75 => 'Octroi Naka',
		(int) 76 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 77 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
		(int) 78 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 79 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
		(int) 80 => 'Vijay',
		(int) 81 => 'Taroda Naka',
		(int) 82 => 'Swapnil',
		(int) 83 => 'Nikhil',
		(int) 84 => 'Vijay Lingayat',
		(int) 85 => 'Vilas Waghmare',
		(int) 86 => 'Sandeep Karvande',
		(int) 87 => 'Pintu Raut',
		(int) 88 => 'Satish Wagre',
		(int) 89 => 'Shriram Madavi',
		(int) 90 => 'no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu',
		(int) 91 => 'Rauth',
		(int) 92 => 'Saurabh @ Banti s/',
		(int) 93 => 'Shriram Madavi',
		(int) 94 => 'No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule',
		(int) 95 => 'No.6 Vijay @ Anna',
		(int) 96 => 'No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy',
		(int) 97 => 'Rauth',
		(int) 98 => 'Raut',
		(int) 99 => 'Rauth',
		(int) 100 => 'Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare',
		(int) 101 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
		(int) 102 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 103 => 'Nikhil Kurdukar',
		(int) 104 => 'Accused No.10',
		(int) 105 => 'Nos',
		(int) 106 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar',
		(int) 107 => 'Gorba Ghadge',
		(int) 108 => 'P.G.Godhamgaonkar'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 1 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 2 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 3 => 'PW 9',
		(int) 4 => 'PW 9',
		(int) 5 => 'PW No.9',
		(int) 6 => 'PW 17',
		(int) 7 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 8 => 'PW No.4'
	),
	'FAC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Accused No.7',
		(int) 1 => 'PW Nos',
		(int) 2 => 'PW No.7 Nilesh',
		(int) 3 => 'Jangamwadi Chowk',
		(int) 4 => 'PW 4 Swapnil',
		(int) 5 => 'PW 5 Shekhar - paper',
		(int) 6 => 'Prakash Wagre',
		(int) 7 => 'No.10',
		(int) 8 => 'PW No.4',
		(int) 9 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 10 => 'Kulchand Gadge',
		(int) 11 => 'No.10 Kulchand Gadge'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'S.302',
		(int) 1 => 'Satish',
		(int) 2 => 'Satish'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'fourth',
		(int) 1 => 'firstly'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Vs',
		(int) 1 => 'Vs',
		(int) 2 => 'no.1',
		(int) 3 => 'Bunty Kamble',
		(int) 4 => 'Bunty',
		(int) 5 => 'Bunty Kamble',
		(int) 6 => 'Bunty Kamble'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'PW No.10',
		(int) 1 => 'PW No.3',
		(int) 2 => 'Prashant Narsing Medpallewar',
		(int) 3 => 'Bunty and Satish'
	),
	'QUANTITY' => array(
		(int) 0 => '6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm',
		(int) 1 => '1 cm',
		(int) 2 => '1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm',
		(int) 3 => '2 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 4 => '6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm',
		(int) 5 => '5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm',
		(int) 6 => '3 x 2',
		(int) 7 => '1/2 cm',
		(int) 8 => '1/2 cm'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'a dark night',
		(int) 1 => '10/15 minutes',
		(int) 2 => 'ten minutes',
		(int) 3 => '25 minutes'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kulchand'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '925218',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 619 of 2009',
		'appellant' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade.',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.',
		'casenote' => '
[A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.] All accused persons flocked there. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. (e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. &nbsp;(i) Medical witnesses: Police witnesses: Panch witnesses: Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. (a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. 8. (Witness declared hostile) accused. Eye witnesses:- Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. -Injury No.3 is vertical injury. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh. All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant. Those accused persons ran away. I can tell names of accused persons. Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.
&nbsp;',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2011-10-20',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A. H. Joshi; A. R. Joshi, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">JUDGMENT:( Per A.H.JOSHI, J.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered severe injuries and, ultimately, died.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Advocates for various appellants have advanced submissions in support of appeals. It will be useful to summarize those as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) There is variation in the statements of witnesses and the prosecution story does not come forward consistently and coherently. PW No.17, star eye witness and the complainant did not support the prosecution and is declared hostile.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) The prosecution has not come forward with any evidence whatsoever to prove any plan, pre-meditation or any other evidence, proving meeting of minds for proof of common object of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Recovery of weapon has come under doubt and, therefore, use of weapon by particular accused is not proved.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) If evidence is seen from any angle, common intention to kill deceased is not even suggested, much less proved. The incident must have been a matter of sudden fight, some provocation, etc. which was not proved by the prosecution and hence guilt of a particular accused or of unlawful assembly and, that too, of murdering, is not proved. No specific role has been attributed to the accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) There are various omissions and contradictions in the versions of the witnesses. The case turns out to be one based on sole testimony of PW No.4. Moreover, there are circumstances which falsify the story, considering proximity of the Police Station, and failure to report the offence immediately, arrival of a Police Constable on the spot, and failure to disclose this fact,etc. In the result, the case, which is totally based on testimony of PW No.4, Swapnil, would not tend to prove the offence of unlawful assembly and, hence, barely on suspicion, the accused cannot be convicted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) Presence as well as role of Accused No.7 is not proved and, therefore, he cannot be convicted for any offence whatsoever. (g) Alternatively, even if it is proved to be a case of unlawful assembly, and that any proof of accused responsible vicariously for act of anyone who is member of assembly, even then, severity of sentence would vary on exact role played by each accused; as far as conviction and sentence of each accused is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(h) In absence of evidence of specific act by a particular accused, may be technical, the accused may be held guilty of being a member of unlawful assembly; yet, he cannot be sentenced with the same severity with which the main assailant would be dealt with. So long as the prosecution story proceeds on the basis that a particular accused has used deadly weapon, even if unlawful assembly is proved and any instigation, etc. by other accused is not proved, ipso facto, it cannot be held to be an unlawful assembly to have common object of murdering.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(i) In the result, the trial has to result in acquittal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. Learned Advocates for appellants have placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1413 (Krishna Govind Patil V. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Plan must precede the act constituting the offence. If that be so, before a Court can convict a person under S.302, read with S.34, provided that it should come to a definite conclusion that the said person had a prior concert with one or more other persons, named or unnamed, for committing the said offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When four persons were charged under S.302 read with S.34 and are acquitted, fourth cannot be convicted for having committed the offence along with one or more of the acquitted persons. 9</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 174(1) (Mohan Singh and another V. State of Punjab) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The acts may be different, may vary in their character, but they are all actuated by the same common intention. It is now well settled that the common intention required by S.34 is different from the same intention or similar intention. As has been observed by the Privy Council in Mahbub Shah v. Emperor, 72 Ind App 148 : (AIR 1945 PC 118), common intention within the meaning of S.34 implies a pre-arranged plan, and to convict the accused of an offence applying the section it should be proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan and that the inference of common intention should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference deducible from the circumstances of the case.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(3) (2010) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 439 (Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinising the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) (2010) 5 SCC 81</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Daya Kishan Vs. State of Haryana)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Whenever a court convicts any person of an offence with the aid of Section 149, a clear finding regarding the common object of the assembly must be given and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature of the common object but that in pursuance of such common object the offence was committed. There is no manner of doubt that before recording the conviction under Section 149 IPC, the essential ingredients of Section 149 IPC must be established.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) AIR 1956 SUPREME COURT 181 (Baladin and others Vs. State of U.P.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Mere spectators had to be distinguished from members of the unlawful assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 254 (V 59 C 57) (Ram Tahal and others Vs. The State of U.P.) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For fixing constructive criminal liability under S.149 on members of an unlawful assembly the court must find with certainty that there were at least five persons sharing the common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) 2011 ALL MR (CRI) 1179 (Sudhir Annaji Choudhary and others vs. State of Maharashtra) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Benefit of doubt could essentially go in favour of the accused, whose identity as a member of an unlawful assembly comes in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While conviction of the main accused may entail a capital punishment, it would not so occur in case of accused whose role was subsidiary and not concurrent with the overt act of the accused liable for severest of punishments.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) 2007 CRI.L.J. 3740 (State of U.P. v. Mustaq Alam) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">When oral evidence of a witness contradicted by medical evidence, the very presence of such witness may come in doubt.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. Learned A.P.P., in reply, has argued as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(a) It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove prior meeting of minds to prove the common object and it would suffice to prove that the assembly had common object and it was illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Any group of persons, which, on its inception may not be an unlawful assembly, would turn out to be an unlawful assembly, having continued and gained common object, which is illegal.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Mathematical or geometric accuracy is not expected from the witnesses, who are laymen. What has to be seen is the totality of the impression that is portrayed, consequent upon observation of tenor of the witness and the fact as to truthfulness of version of the witness. Minor discrepancies would never take away the worthiness of the evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) On facts, the prosecution story, which is based on the oral evidence as to the presence of the accused persons, presence of all witnesses is proved; omission of some of the witnesses in naming few amongst them, by itself, would not result in destroying worthiness of the testimony of the witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Testimony of PW No.4 is adequate to convict the accused persons. Even if one witness proves that the accused persons were present, they had marched with a common intention and common object, and few amongst those were not sheer passers-by or witnesses standing by the side, and rather participated in the act. All of them become members of the unlawful assembly, and have become liable for act of even one amongst them, who has caused the murder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(f) The omissions and contradictions relied upon and pointed by the defense do not result in destroying worth of the witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved its case and conviction deserves to be maintained.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on following judgments:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">1) 2010 CRI.L.J.3854 (Sikandar Singh &amp; Ors. V. State of Bihar) Proposition:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">A `common object' does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each member of the unlawful assembly has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The `common object' of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly, before and at the time of attack and thereafter, the motive for the crime, are some of the relevant considerations.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2)(a) AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3717 (Leela Ram v. State of Haryana) and</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) 2003 CRI.L.J. 3876</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sucha Singh and another vs. State of Punjab) Propositions:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations : whereas some become speechless, some start wailing some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3) AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1808 (Nathuni Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar and another.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Propositions:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Where assailants are not strangers to the inmates of the tragedy bound house, the eye witnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers, even in less or full illumination, the accused may be identified.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">9. The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. The witnesses are broadly classified as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(i) Medical witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No 9 : Dr.Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh. (b) PW No.10: Dr.Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge. (c) PW No.16: Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare (d) PW No.18: Dr.Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Police witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No.6 : Anil Mahadu Pohre, Constable. (b) PW No.12: Kamlakar Govindrao Kale, PSI. (c) PW No.13: Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar, Lady Police Constable.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.15: Uttam Mukundrao Ghule, A.P.I.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Panch witnesses:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Sr. Name of witness Examined to prove. No.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW 1. Inquest Panchnama (Exh.58)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) Akash Narsareddy Satpalwar, PW 2. Panchnama of seizure of clothes (Exh.60, 61, 62)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Article No.12,19, 21 and 27)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) Harish Marotirao Dongaonkar, PW 3. Recovery Panchnama ( Exh.68,69,70)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) Nilesh Bhanudasrao Gite, PW 7. Involvement of Pintu Raut and Balu Raut in planning to assault somebody and identity of Ambadas Dhone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(e) Dnyaneshwar Ganpatrao Gaikwad, PW Seizure panchnama of clothes of</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. (Witness declared hostile) accused.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(iv) Witnesses on other aspects:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW No.14 (Exh.94) Narsing Naganna Medpallewar, father of deceased Prashant, proved earlier complaint in relation to a quarrel.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(v) Eye witnesses:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) PW No. 4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) PW No.5 Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao (Exh.72).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(c) PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur ( Exh.89) and,</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(d) PW No.17 Nikhil s/o Madhukar Kurdukar (Exh.129).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">10. The investigation relating to recording of FIR and recording of Panchnama is formal in nature. Discussion on these matters in details, would be of no much use in finding out which facts are proved, in view of the number of eye witnesses.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">11. The inquest and spot panchnamas, are not in serious dispute. The matters of seizure of the Khanjar, etc. are challenged by cross examination of PW Nos. 1 Keshav, PW No.2 Akash and PW No.3 Harish and the cross examination is not of much use. The recovery of Khanjar can thus be regarded as proved. Panch witnesses PW No.7 Nilesh and PW No.8 Dnyaneshwar have turned hostile. Any further discussion in relation to this evidence will not be of much need.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">12. The report of Chemical Analyzer, pertains to the blood stains found on 26 items forming part of evidence, gathered during investigation. The results being "inconclusive", any further discussion is unwarranted.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">13. The injuries on the person of PW No.17 Nikhil Madhukar Kurdukar are proved by PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge, Medical Officer, whose testimony is at Exh.87, page No.593 and onwards.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Injuries suffered by accused No. 1 Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble and No.9 Vilas Gangaram Waghmare are proved by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16, Exh.126, page no. 719 and onwards. Injuries to PW No.18 Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte, Exh.134, page no.737 and onwards, are simple in nature.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">14. The injuries suffered by deceased Prashant Narsing Medpallewar are seen from the post mortem report (Exh.84, page No.583) and are proved by PW 9 Dr.Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh (Exh.83, page no.576 and onwards).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">15. The cause of death of Prashant Medpallewar is narrated in the post mortem examination report at page no.583 which reads as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Cause of death is due to cardiac arrest due to the stab injury to heart with multiple injuries on body with hypo-volumic shock."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from post mortem report, page No.589 of paper-book)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">16. PW No.9 Dr.Vithal Pratwagh has reproduced the injuries suffered by deceased Prashant in his testimony which correspond to Column No.17 of post mortem examination report (Page Nos.576 and 577). Those injuries read as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"1. A stab wound over left middle chest 6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">2. A wound over the left chest at Clavical region; 2 x 1 1/2 x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">3. A wound over the left lateral elbow 1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">4. A wound on below over the left elbow 1 1/2 x 2 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">5. A wound on lateral forearm 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">6. A wound on left axilary region 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm - tissue dead.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">7. A wound perforated on left sub costal lateral on omentum is out from wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 cm.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">8. A wound over the right shoulder 2 x 2 x 1/2 cm."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of PW 9, at paper book page Nos.576 and 577.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">17. As regards the weapon, which was possibly used for causing the injuries referred to in column No.17, PW No.9 Dr.Vithal has deposed as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" -External injury No.1 and 7 are possible by Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury No.2 may be possible by dropping a big stone on chest.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 may be possible by blows of Khanjar.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.3 is vertical injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-Injury No.4 is an horizontal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">External injury No.5 may be possible by rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injury no.8 may be possible by rod."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(quoted from deposition of Dr.Vithal, PW 9, paper-book page No.577 578.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">18. PW 9 Dr. Vithal then proceeds to opine the adequacy of injuries to cause death. Relevant portion of his testimony reads as under:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"06. External injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death. Due to external injuries no.1 and 7 there is possibility of oozing lot of blood. External injuries no.2 and 6 shows that firstly deceased was assaulted by sharp object and then stone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">07. External injuries no.1 and 7 may be possible by Khanjar Art.no.34. Khanjar now shown to me."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.2 and 6 may be possible by Art.no.3 stone, now shown to me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">-External injuries no.3 and 4 are possible by Khanjar Art.No.34." (quoted from deposition of PW 9 paper-book page No.578 of paper- book.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">19. The testimony of PW No.9, has been done in searching cross examination conducted by different Advocates for the accused persons. The testimony is not shattered as regards probable weapon of assault and as to the cause of death assigned in the post mortem report.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">20. The prosecution story thus rests solely on testimony of eye witnesses, namely, PW No.4 Swapnil, PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">21. The eye witness on which the prosecution case entirely stands is PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar (Exh.71). PW No.4 is also injured and whose injuries are certified by Dr.Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, PW No.16.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">22. PW 4 Swapnil has narrated the initial incident as to what happened in relation to throwing of the stone on the motor cycle and the quarrel that had followed thereon. He names all accused, except accused No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande and describes the situation in his words as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Incident took place on 18.11.2007.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">On the day, in the evening, I was returning from work.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At workshop T-point, Ashwin Shinde and Mahesh Thakur met me.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, myself, Ashwin and Mahesh were proceeding towards Jangamwadi on foot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We reached at Jangamwadi Chowk square.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At that time, Pintu Raut, Bunty Kamble, Satish Wagre, Vijay Lingayat, Sandy, Anil Ghongde, Vilas Waghmare, Kiran and Ganesh and Kulchand were talking to Nikhil Kurdukar, Santosh Thakur and Shekhar Bhalerao.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, Bunty and Satish asked Nikhil why he gave abuse to them and pushed him.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">We tried to convince them, but they did not listen us.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Bunty Kamble and Satish Wagre assaulted Nikhil by fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Nikhil called Prashant on telephone.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Immediately, Prashant came there on motor cycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He tried to convince those persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All persons assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those boys were more in number, hence I afraid and went aside.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Pintu Raut took Khanjar from Kulchand and gave blows of Khanjar on chest, stomach (chest side), leg of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Kulchand took that Khanjar and assaulted Prashant, by inflicting blows of Khanjar in any direction.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant received those blows on his hand and shoulder.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Rest accused persons assaulted Nikhil by rod and fist and kick blows.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant was lying on ground.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Accused Vijay put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on the chest of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Prashant was lying facing his mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again accused Vijay lifted that stone and put that stone on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter Police came there by motorcycle.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Those accused persons ran away." (quoted from deposition of PW 4 Swapnil - paper- book page Nos.540 and 541, Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience of reading.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">23. This witness PW No.4 Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar has been cross examined in order to impeach his testimony by showing him the omissions and suggestions as follows:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(1) It was a dark night and there was no electricity supply and, in the result, there was no illumination.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(2) Though he has stated that there was illumination, he did not say it before the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">&nbsp;(3) Omission as regards assault on hand and shoulder, the distance between Bhagyanagar Police Station and the place of the incident;</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(4) Omission of the fact that Police Constable arrived on the spot where there was no any traffic when the incident occurred.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(5) Visibility of the place of offense from Bhagyanagar Police Station or Octroi Naka.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(6) He did not go to Police Chowky in the hospital or nearest Police Station or the Police Station on the way.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The oral exchange went on for 10/15 minutes and it was not informed to the Police.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The duration of the incident.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">24. PW No.5 Shekhar gives the background of the incident as regards actual assault. He states as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">" Bunty and Satish were also present and they also assaulted Nikhil and Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was iron rod in the hands of Sandeep and Vilas Waghmare. They assaulted to Nikhil and Prashant by that rod.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Kulchand Gadge gave blows of Khanjar to Prashant in many directions.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was rush and hence I could not see actual incident of other assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant fell on ground in that assault. Accused Vijay Lingayat put a stone of 15 to 20 kg on Prashant. That stone was put on the chest of Prashant. After putting stone, Prashant was lying facing mouth towards earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Again Vijay lifted that stone and put on the back of Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Prashant sustained many bleeding injuries and blood was fallen on earth.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At the same time, one policeman came from Taroda Naka. He came on motor cycle. Thereafter, all accused persons fled away from the spot.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Thereafter, Swapnil and Nikhil lifted Prashant and took him to hospital by motor cycle. I also followed them to Civil Hospital, Nanded. Doctor examined and reported Prashant dead. The accused persons before the Court are the same.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">There was light at incident spot from three poles which are standing near pan-stall, hair saloon and power house.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">I can tell names of accused persons. They are Vijay Lingayat, Vilas Waghmare, Sandeep Karvande, Kiran Phule, Pintu Raut, Ganesh Madvi, Satish Wagre and Bunty Kamble."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Quoted from deposition of PW 5 Shekhar - paper book page nos. 555 and 556.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(Sub-paragraphing is done for convenience and emphasis.)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">25. PW 5 Shekhar has given names of all accused, except accused nos. 4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, and names accused no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth as regards the initial verbal exchange is concerned.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">26. In so far as the actual assault is concerned, PW 5 Shekhar names accused no. 1, Saurabh @ Banti s/o Deeliprao Kamble, No.2 Satish s/o Prakash Wagre, No.4 Ganesh s/o Shriram Madavi, No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule, No.6 Vijay @ Anna s/o Chandrakant, No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy s/o Bhagwanrao Karwande, No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth and No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In the cross examination PW 5 Shekhar has replied as follows:</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">"Question : What accused Pintu Raut did. Answer : I could not see his act due to rush."</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">In further cross examination this witness narrates that the incident ended within ten minutes. He did not try to catch any of the assailants nor reported the matter to the Police. He is a friend of the victims. The assailants were ten in number and he was frightened.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">27. As regards testimony of PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur is concerned, he involves all accused, however, naming specifically, the accused No.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu s/o Narhari Rauth, No.9 Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge having done the assault.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">28. Prosecution witness No.17 Nikhil Kurdukar who is also injured, in the beginning, gave due account of the event, however, declined to reveal all that he had stated about the incident and, hence, was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. In the cross examination of this witness by the accused, what he has revealed in substance is that:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30 to 35 persons had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident and that a Policeman had arrived on the spot when the assault was just over.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The incident went on for 25 minutes and the Police Station was on the way to the hospital where Prashant was taken.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">All accused had assaulted myself and deceased Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">29. PW No.5 Shekhar and PW No.11 Mahesh, eye witnesses, though have been relied upon, their testimonies do not render any valuable assistance to the prosecution.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The contents of these testimonies do not have worth for which those were tendered i.e. the object of prosecution to involve all accused persons.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">30. Sum effect of the examination in chief and cross examination of PW 17 Nikhil Kurdukar is that he has stated about the involvement of accused nos. 1 Saurabh, No.2 Satish and No.10 Kulchand Gadge by use of knife, stones, etc. though he said that all accused had assaulted him as well as Prashant.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">31. When the testimony of all witnesses is seen together as regards the actual fatal assault, the testimony of PW No.4 is crucial.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">32. While testimony of all other witnesses is not of much use qua the for assault on the deceased. The testimonies of all these witnesses can be scrutinized as regards other aspects such as unlawful assembly, common object, etc. Even upon accepting the testimonies of all these witnesses, fervently relied upon by the prosecution, nothing crucial emerges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">33. What can be concluded in favour of the prosecution is that large number of accused persons, whose identification is vague, were present at the scene of offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The evidence does not succeed in proving either common intention or common object.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">34. The testimony of PW No.4 describes specific acts by the accused No.10 in assaulting the deceased, resulting into fatal injury.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">PW 4 has done this without any ambiguity. He has stated that Kulchand Gadge, accused No.10, gave the fatal blow.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">35. As it is seen from the record that PW No.4 is the sole witness who has named Kulchand Gadge. However, description of the acts done by Kulchand Gadge is very specific and unambiguous.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">36. The result is that the fatal assault by deadly weapon resulting into death of Prashant is attributable to Kulchand Gadge only. Presence of all other accused, though suggested, cannot be recorded as proved for any specific act, forming offence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">37. The evidence tends to prove that there was rivalry between two groups. The evidence, however, does not prove in positive terms that assault by Kulchand Gadge, Accused No.10, was with an intention to murder Prashant. The weapon of assault and location of injury i.e. the chest, is, taken into account, however proves that a person of ordinary prudence was bound to know the result of injury caused by him. The accused could have explained circumstances, if any, as to how he had caused injuries and whether he claimed any private defence or explained the nature and cause of injury which was proved to have been caused by him. It is, thus, evident that the accused No.10 is guilty of offence of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and is liable therefor.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">38. Appeal Nos.580, 601, 619, 627 all of 2009 and appeal Nos. 2 &amp; 5, both of 2010 are allowed. All other accused, except accused No.10, are acquitted of all charges.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">39. Appeal No.625/2009 filed by accused No. 10 Kulchand Gadge is partly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence is modified, and instead of Section 302 of I.P.C., the accused No.10 Kulchand Gadge is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 1st part of I.P.C.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">40. Now, we propose to hear the accused No. 10 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">41. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.G.Godhamgaonkar, who appears for the appellant / accused No.10 Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge in appeal No.625/2009 on the point of sentence.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">42. Learned Advocate Mr.P.G.Godhamgaonkar has urged following points in order to secure leniency for the accused Kulchand s/o Gorba Ghadge:-</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(a) That the age of the accused, on the date of the incident, was 23 years.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">(b) According to the prosecution, though there is background of rivalry, - considering the age of the accused, he cannot be considered to be a person of political intent with criminal mind. He, therefore, prays for leniency.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">43. Considering that the offence, which this Court has held to be proved, is under Section 304 Part I of IPC, but for the intention, the accused / appellant has saved himself from conviction under Section 302 of IPC yet, when considering the gravity of offence, which does not in any manner get diluted and also, considering the age of the accused, the sentence could not reach life imprisonment.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The accused is, therefore, considered liable for sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.five thousand) and three months simple imprisonment for default in payment of fine.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">He would be entitled to set off as is available in law under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => '',
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of MaharashtrA.',
		'sub' => '',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '925218'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 4(25, Indian Arms Act, Section 149, Section 149 IPC, Section 149 IPC, Article No.12,19, Section 302 of I.P.C., Section 304 1st, Section 304, Section 302, Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure

CARDINAL: 1, ten, 2, 3., 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149, 4, 5, 6, 1, four, 9, 2, 72, 118, 3, 10, 439, 4, 5, 5, 181, 6, 254, at least five, 8), one, 8, 1, five, 2)(a, 3, 9, 18, 8, 4, 10, 11, 1, 12, 26, 13, 1, 719, no.737, 15, 16, 577, 1, 2., 2, 1 1/2, 3., 4., 1 1/2, 5, 6., 8., 2, 2, 577, 17, No.1, 7, No.2, 4, No.3, No.4, 578, 18, 06, 7, 6, 07, 7, 6, 4, 19, 20, No.4, 22, 15 to 20, 541, 23, No.4, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8), 24, 15 to 20, three, 555, 556, 25, 4, 26, 1, No.2, No.8, ten, 27, No.8, 28, 30 to 35, 29, 30, 1, No.2, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37., two, 38, 601, 619, 627, 5, 39, 10, 10, 41, 43., thousand

ORG: the Court of Additional Sessions, IPC, Khanjar, PW No.17, the Police Station, a Police Constable, AIR 1963, SUPREME COURT, Court, AIR 1963, SUPREME COURT, the Privy Council, State of Uttarakhand, AIR 1956, SUPREME COURT, U.P., AIR 1972, SUPREME COURT, The State of U.P., CRI, State of Maharashtra, U.P., A.P.P., Singh &amp, Ors, the unlawful assembly, AIR 1999, SUPREME COURT, State of Punjab, Court, Court, Court, AIR 1997, SUPREME COURT, Nathuni Yadav, State of Bihar, PSI, A.P.I., Keshav Madhavrao Gaikwad, PW Seizure, PW No.14, PW No, PW No.5, PW No.17 Nikhil s/, FIR, Khanjar, Khanjar, Chemical Analyzer, PW No.17, PW 10 Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge, Exh.87, Deeliprao Kamble, PW 9 Dr., Column No.17, No.17, Khanjar, Khanjar, -Injury, no.1, no.2, no.1, Khanjar, Khanjar, no.2, Khanjar Art, PW No.5 Shekhar, PW No.4, No.7 Sandeep @, Bhagwanrao Karwande, Ganesh, Santosh Thakur, Khanjar, Khanjar, Khanjar, Khanjar, Nikhil, the Police., Bhagyanagar Police Station, Police Constable, Bhagyanagar Police Station, the Police Station, PW No.5 Shekhar, Sandeep, Kulchand Gadge, Khanjar, Civil Hospital, Court, PW 5 Shekhar, Narhari, PW 5 Shekhar, Deeliprao Kamble, No.4 Ganesh s/, Bhagwanrao Karwande, Narhari, Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, PW 5 Shekhar, PW No.11 Mahesh Eknath Thakur, Narhari, the Police Station, PW No.5 Shekhar, PW 4, Kulchand Gadge, Appeal Nos.580, Learned Advocate, Court, IPC, IPC

GPE: Nanded, another V. State of Punjab, Mahbub, Bihar, Panch, Panchnama, Keshav, PW, Nos.576, no.3, no.3, PW, PW, PW, Kiran, Kulchand, Kulchand, Nos.540, PW, Nanded, No.10 Kulchand s/, Kulchand Gadge, Kulchand Gadge, Kulchand Gadge

DATE: 10th Nov., 1413, 174(1, 2010, 2010, 1179, 2007, 3740, 2010, 3717, 2003, 3876, 1808, PW 1, 61, 62, 21, 27, PW 3, 14, PW 9, 21, 18.11.2007, the day, 35, 36, 2009, 2010, I.P.C. 40, 42, 23 years, ten years, three months

PERSON: Heard Advocate, Jangamwadi Chowk, Nikhil Kurdukar, Medpallewar, Swapnil, Patil V. State, S.34, S.34, Mohan Singh, S.34, S.34, Pamma, Haryana, Baladin, Ram Tahal, Sudhir Annaji Choudhary, Mustaq Alam, V. State of, Leela Ram v. State, Sucha Singh, Vithal Limbajirao Pratwagh, Pratap Vishwanathrao Durge, Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte, Anil Mahadu Pohre, No.12, Kamlakar Govindrao Kale, Sujata Shankarrao Taklikar, Mukundrao Ghule, Examined, Narsareddy Satpalwar, Marotirao Dongaonkar, Raut, Balu Raut, Ambadas Dhone, Shekhar Prakash Bhalerao, Exh.89, Madhukar Kurdukar, Madhukar Kurdukar, Vilas Gangaram Waghmare, Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, Madhukar Kashinathrao Hatte, Vitthal Limbajirao Pratwagh, no.576, Vithal Pratwagh, Vithal, no.8, Vithal, Vithal, No.4 Swapnil, Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar, Hawgirao Khushalrao Sakhare, 4 Swapnil, Ashwin Shinde, Mahesh Thakur, Ashwin, Mahesh, Jangamwadi, Pintu Raut, Satish Wagre, Vijay Lingayat, Anil Ghongde, Vilas Waghmare, Nikhil Kurdukar, Shekhar Bhalerao, Nikhil, Satish Wagre, Nikhil, Nikhil, Nikhil, Raut, Kulchand, Vijay, Vijay, Swapnil Sudhirrao Kawalgaonkar, Octroi Naka, Nikhil, Vilas Waghmare, Nikhil, Vijay Lingayat, Vijay, Taroda Naka, Swapnil, Nikhil, Vijay Lingayat, Vilas Waghmare, Sandeep Karvande, Pintu Raut, Satish Wagre, Shriram Madavi, no.8 Siddodhan @ Pintu, Rauth, Saurabh @ Banti s/, Shriram Madavi, No.5 Kiran s/o Sambhaji Phule, No.6 Vijay @ Anna, No.7 Sandeep @ Sandy, Rauth, Raut, Rauth, Vilas s/o Gangaram Waghmare, Gorba Ghadge, Nikhil Kurdukar, Nikhil Kurdukar, Accused No.10, Nos, P.G.Godhamgaonkar, Gorba Ghadge, P.G.Godhamgaonkar

EVENT: PW No.4, PW No.4, PW No.4, PW 9, PW 9, PW No.9, PW 17, PW No.4, PW No.4

FAC: Accused No.7, PW Nos, PW No.7 Nilesh, Jangamwadi Chowk, PW 4 Swapnil, PW 5 Shekhar - paper, Prakash Wagre, No.10, PW No.4, Kulchand Gadge, Kulchand Gadge, No.10 Kulchand Gadge

NORP: S.302, Satish, Satish

ORDINAL: fourth, firstly

PRODUCT: Vs, Vs, no.1, Bunty Kamble, Bunty, Bunty Kamble, Bunty Kamble

WORK_OF_ART: PW No.10, PW No.3, Prashant Narsing Medpallewar, Bunty and Satish

QUANTITY: 6 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm, 1 cm, 1 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm, 2 cm x 1 cm, 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm, 3 x 2, 1/2 cm, 1/2 cm

TIME: a dark night, 10/15 minutes, ten minutes, 25 minutes

LOC: Kulchand