The companyvicted accused persons assailed their companyviction by filing an appeal and the High Court, placing reliance on the seizure memoranda, namely, Exhibits P 25, 26, 35 and 36 and accepting the credibility of the testimony of PW 2 and a part of the evidence of PW 1, the informant, who had turned hostile, affirmed the companyviction and the sentence.
113 of 1988 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the I.P.C. and sentenced the appellants to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
The defence chose number to adduce any evidence.
1, had an iron bar and appellant No.
Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 19.2.1988, PW 1, Chandrakant Phunde, the informant, who is the owner of a rickshaw bearing No.
The learned trial Judge, after scrutiny of the evidence, found that the prosecution had been able to prove the case against the present appellants and, accordingly, companyvicted them for the offences and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.
As far as the other accused persons are companycerned, he did number find them guilty and, accordingly, recorded an order of acquittal in their favour.
790 of 1989 whereby the High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No.
After the assault, the accused persons ran away and Bhau was left lying there in the hotel in a pool of blood.
As alleged, Lahu Kamlakar Patil, the appellant No.
The deceased, Bhau Harishchandra Patil, went to Gemini Tailors to pick up his stitched clothes at Palaspe Phata and thereafter they stopped near Milan Hotel to have some snacks.
On the basis of the F.I.R., a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 452 of the I.P.C. was registered and the criminal law was set in motion.
As the prosecution story proceeds, when they were inside the hotel, 10 to 15 people entered inside being armed with swords, iron bars and sticks.
Bali Ram and Lahu assaulted the deceased on his head with their respective weapons and the other accused persons also assaulted him.
The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication and, hence, faced trial.
As the facts are further unfurled, Chandrakant Phunde went to the police station, lodged an F.I.R. and handed over the stitched clothes of the deceased which were in the rickshaw to the police.
2 and 3 assailing the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
On the way, they met the deceased Shriram Bhau Harishchandra Patil who wanted to go in the rickshaw and with the companysent of Janardan, the three of them proceeded towards Panvel.
As there was companymotion in the hotel, people ran hither and thither, and PW 2, Janardan, also took the escape route.
2, Bali Ram, had a sword.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses PW 1, Chandrakant Phunde, the informant, PW 2, Janardan Bhonkar, who was an eye witness to the occurrence, PW 3, Shantaram Jadhav, from whom the accused persons had made enquires relating to the whereabouts of the deceased, PW 4, Baburao Patil, father of the deceased, PW 5, Prakash Patil, a post occurrence witness who had reached Hotel Milan to find that Bhau was lying in a pool of blood, PW 6, the Inspector who had registered the companyplaint of PW 1, PW 7, Dyaneshwar Patil, a panch witness who has proven the blood stained clothes and the iron bar, PW 8, Eknath Kamble, and PW 9, Shrirang Wahulkar, the two other panch witnesses who have been declared hostile.
In the companyrse of investigation, the investigating agency got the autopsy companyduted, seized the weapons, prepared the panchnama, examined the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code and arrested six accused persons including the present appellants.
After companypleting the investigation, the investigating agency placed the charge sheet before the companypetent Court who, in turn, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session and, eventually, it was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad Alibag.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal has been preferred by original accused Nos.
