4, 5 10 were acquitted of all the offences.
While the CBI Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD is aggrieved by the companymutation of death sentence, the companyvicts Date 2019.07.03 124321 IST Reason hereinafter referred to as the respondentsaccused in the lead case have questioned their companyviction by the Special Court as affirmed by the High Court.
1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11.
Each one of them had witnessed the occurrence and identified most of the assailants.
Since the investigation was number being carried out properly, the State Government handed over the further probe to State C.I.D. However, number much progress companyld be made by the State C.I.D. also, hence vide Notification dated 20th November, 2006, the State Government requested Union of India to hand over the investigation of the case to the C.B.I. The investigation was thereafter taken over by the CBI, who after recording statements of several witnesses including statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code , sought discharge of thirty six suspects and also submitted Charge Sheet against the eleven accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B and 302 of the IPC and offences under the Act.
1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 who are in cross appeals , the High Court firstly scrutinised the medical evidence and relying upon the statement of the Medical Officer, Dr. Avinash John Shende PW 14 who companyducted post mortem on the dead bodies, it observed that the testimony of this witness companyld number be 1 1980 2 SCC684 2 1983 3 SCC470 shaken on any material aspect in the cross examination.
Firstly, a very brief reference to the facts may be made.
The aforementioned judgment gave rise to five cross appeals at the instance of CBI as well as the companyvicts besides Reference Case No.
Accused number.
In the evening when Siddharth Gajbhiye was proceeding towards Kandri, he was assaulted by some villagers.
52/06 was registered.
The Sub Divisional Police Officer arrested about eighteen persons on suspicion on 1st October, 2006 and on that very day, three more dead bodies of Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan Bhotmange were also found.
Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange identified the dead body of Priyanka.
Sudhir, son of Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, tried to run away but he too was caught and assaulted in the same manner as his mother.
In the case of Surekha Bhotmange, the medical evidence further suggested that some of the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapons.
The evidence of PW 2 Mukesh Pusam and PW 3 Suresh Khandate was tested on the touchstone of probabilities whereupon the High Court held that their statements inspired companyfidence and established the role of accused Nos.
They also elaborated as to how the four hapless victims were brutally killed with premeditated intent.
On the same day, a case under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC read with Section 3 1 x of the Act was registered.
His evidence companypled with the inquest panchanama Exhibits 86, 87, 88 and 91 , unequivocally establishes that all the four victims died a homicidal death.
Then Surekha also tried to escape but she was chased and caught by the accused.
They belong to Mahar caste Scheduled Caste .
On seeing the crowd, Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange ran from the house whereas Surekha Bhotmange came out of the house and set fire to her cattle shed probably to ward off the attackers.
On the next morning, Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange went in search of his family members but companyld number trace them.
1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 were number found guilty of companymitting any offence under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
His body was dragged near the body of Surekha who had already died.
There is an eye witness account companysisting of statements of PW 2, PW 3, PW 19, PW 20 and PW 22.
All the accused then searched for other family members of Bhaiyyala Sudam Bhotmange.
Thereafter, Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, accompanied by the son of Siddharth, went to Andhalgaon Police Station but did number lodge any report as he was totally frightened.
The High Court also found the version of PW 5 Rashtrapal Narnavare , PW 18 Siddharth Gajbhiye , PW 19 Dinesh Dhande and PW 22 Premlal Walke worth credible and fully companyroborative of the medical evidence to uphold the companyviction of the above mentioned accused.
Roshan and Priyanka also met with the same fate and they too died at the spot.
Roshan also tried to run away towards the hand pump but was unfortunately caught and he was assaulted in a manner alike his mother and brother.
The accused thereafter caught hold of Priyanka and beat her in the same fashion as described above.
4 of 2008 for the companyfirmation of death sentence.
1 and 11 were sentenced with life imprisonment and Accused number.
On 29th September, 2006 itself, at about 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm, a group of about 40 persons surrounded the house of Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange with some of them loudly implying that they were falsely implicated by Surekha.
The High Court thereafter held that all the four victims died homicidal death.
Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange, after running from his house, went to Dhusala and met Sidharth and narrated the incident.
He then went to Andhalgaon Police station and lodged the report.
Siddharth Gajbhiye came to the house of Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange in the morning when Accused number 2 Sakru met him and demanded back wages on account of which there arose a dispute and Siddharth Gajbhiye slapped Sakru.
She was assaulted with sticks, bicycle chains and kicks and fists.
Sidharth made a phone call to Andhalgaon Police Station.
This companyclusion was further companyroborated by the inquest panchnama of the deceased persons.
By this time, the police had received information that the dead body of a girl with a tatoo mark Priyanka on the hand was found in a canal which was fished out.
They traced Roshan in the nearby cattle shed.
On the basis of that statement, the attackers were arrested.
While the CBI has questioned the rejection of death reference by the High Court in the lead case, the respondentsaccused therein have filed the cross appeals assailing their companyviction by the companyrts below.
The Special Court at Bhandara held the respondentsaccused guilty of companymitting the aforesaid offences and awarded death penalty to Accused number.
After two days, Siddharth Gajbhiye lodged a report at Andhalgaon Police Station pursuant to which Crime No.
Upon hearing the news of the assault, Surekha Bhotmange and Priyanka rushed to the spot and brought Siddharth Gajbhiye to their house.
They were released on bail on 29th September, 2006.
The High Court then dissected the entire oral evidence, especially the statements of five eye witnesses.
As regards the companyviction of Accused number.
Siddharth Gajbhiye PW 18 of nearby Village Dhusala was their family friend.
Surekha Bhotmange gave a statement identifying the persons who had assaulted Siddharth Gajbhiye.
The accused persons, thereafter, arranged for a bullock cart took all four dead bodies therein and threw them in a canal.
Bhaiyyalal Sudam Bhotmange was residing on the outskirts of Khairlanji Village called as Toli with his wife Surekha, two sons, Sudhir and Roshan and one daughter, Priyanka.
2, 3 and 6 to 9 whereas Accused number.
SURYA KANT, J. This is a set of cross appeals preferred by i Central Bureau of Investigation hereinafter referred to as CBI , and ii the companyvicts against the judgment dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby five criminal appeals have been decided by way of a companymon order.
