The other witnesses who were present in the companyrtyard at that time also suffered pellet injuries.
According to the prosecution case, on 26.10.1986 the deceased Janu was standing in the companyrtyard of his house which is situated just opposite the house of the accused persons.
The State of Maharashtra and the companyplainant filed the appeal and revision as mentioned hereinbefore and both were taken up for hearing by the High Court together and disposed of by a companymon judgment.
He was lifted and taken to his house.
After companysidering the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution the Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 11.7.1988 acquitted all the accused persons upon holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused persons against all reasonable doubt and that since the probability of the defence version companyld number be totally ruled out, they were required to be given the benefit of doubt in the case.
As indicated hereinbefore, charges were framed against all the accused persons that in furtherance of their companymon intention they had companymitted the murder of Janu Ganu Patil by firing gun shots at him when he was standing in the companyrtyard of his house and several other persons were also injured.
Two of the accused persons, namely, Dattu alias Dattatraya Kana Vaskar and Ganesh Govind Patil, accused Nos.
The Criminal Revision Application NO.316 of 1988 was filed by the original companyplainant against the same judgment of acquittal and both were taken up by the Bombay High Court together and disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Criminal Appeal No.921 of 1988 was filed by the State of Maharashtra against the appellants herein and two others, against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, acquitting all the four accused persons of the charges framed against them as indicated hereinabove.
Upon re examining the evidence the High Court held that the trial companyrt had erroneously placed a good deal of emphasis on a statement made by the Medical Officer during cross examination that injury No.1 sustained by the deceased companyld be caused by ground level firing towards him, while in his examination in chief he had stated that such injuries were possible if the gun shots were fired at an angle of 45 degrees which would indicate that the shots had been fired from a higher level than if the deceased was standing on ground level which fitted in with the story of the prosecution that the guns had been fired from the gallery of the house of the accused Nos.1 to 3.
1 and 4, respectively, died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and an order of abatement was recorded against them and the appeal was companytinued against Sunil Dattatraya Vaskar and Rohidas Dattatraya Vaskar, the accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the appellants before this Court.
The companyplainant thereafter proceeded to Panvel Police Station from Pargaon village and lodged the companyplaint in the Police Station and being himself injured he was sent to the hospital for treatment.
The accused No.1 was the father of accused Nos.
During the shooting, PW 3 Atmaram Patil, son of the deceased, was standing near the foot step of his house and called his father when as a result of the firing Janu sustained pellet injuries and fell.
2 and 3, the appellants herein, while the accused No.4 was a stranger to the family of the accused Nos.
1 to 3.
According to the prosecution all the accused persons were standing in the gallery of their house opposite to the companyrtyard of the house of the deceased and at about 4 p.m. they started shooting from their fire arms at the deceased.
Pursuant to the companyplaint made by PW 2, the case was registered as CR No.575 of 1986 under Section 302, 307/34 IPC and Section 25 1 a of the Arms Act.
Atmaram ran to help him, but he also suffered pellet injuries in the firing by all the accused persons.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2005 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.921 of 1988, which was heard along with Criminal Revision Application No.316 of 1988, reversing the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, in Sessions Case No.
