State Of Maharashtra vs Mangeni Tamanna Bandgar & Ors.

A.S. Gadkari, J

This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by State against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.04.1996, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1996, acquitting the Respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 r/w. 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

Heard Mr. Yagnik, the learned APP for State and Mr. B.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant/Revision Applicant at length

and perused the entire record.

The prosecution case in brief is that, the Appellants were having enmity with deceased Somrayya M. Bandgar and his family members over landed

property and therefore, on 28.06.1995, in furtherance of their common intention, the Appellants assaulted Somrayya M. Bandgar (deceased) and

Mhalappa M. Bandgar (PWÂ14) with iron pipe, scythe, axe and other weapons wherein Somrayya succumbed to injuries. After completion of

investigation, the Police submitted chargeÂsheet. The learned Trial Court, by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.04.1996 was pleased to

acquit the Respondents from the offences charged against them.

At the outset it is to be noted here that the learned Counsel for the Revision Applicant Mr. B.R. Patil and the learned APP on instructions submitted

that the Respondent No.1 Mangeni T. Bandgar and Respondent No.3 Tamanna M. Bandgar have expired during the pendency of the present Appeal.

In view thereof, the present Appeal survived only against Respondent No.2 â€" Shivgeni T. Bandgar.

The evidence on record indicates that Mahadeo Shinde (PWÂ8) and Manohar Kulkarni (PWÂ12) have assigned the role of assault by Respondent

No.2 with scythe on deceased Somrayya and injured Mhalappa (PWÂ14), whereas Sidhappa Hake (PWÂ9) and Mhalappa Bandgar (PWÂ14) have

not assigned any specific role to the Respondent No.2 in the said assault. The evidence of PWÂ8, 9, 12 and 14 is full with material contradictions and

omissions. The corroborative evidence propounded by the prosecution as against the Respondent No.2 â€" Shivgeni, suffers from vital infirmities due

to which no overtÂ​act can be attributed to the Respondent No.2 in the present crime.

After perusing the entire record, we are of the considered opinion that, the view adopted by the Trial Court is a reasonable and probable view in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, thereby acquitting the Respondent No.2 from the offences charged against him.

In view of the above, we find no merits in the Appeal and Revision Application and the same are accordingly dismissed.