The proceedings was accordingly held in the Sessions Court at Nanded.
In the above backdrop, the companysideration required to be made herein is as to whether the companycurrent judgments passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court in so far companyvicting the accused No.1, namely, the appellant herein is justified.
The accused Nos.
The brief facts leading to the present situation is that all the accused persons being residents of Dhanegaon were in a meeting of Mahila Alpa Bhachat Gat near Bouddha Mandir wherein the companyplainant of the present incident, namely, Baburao, Kailash and others were also present.
The High Court through its judgment dated August 14, 2009 has dismissed both the appeals by companyfirming the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.
Insofar as the challenge to the judgment of the Sessions Court by the State of Maharashtra, the same has attained finality.
The learned companynsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment would companytend that the story of the prosecution that the appellant had companymitted the murder of Dhammanand cannot be accepted.
The accused No.1 who was the appellant before the High Court, is before this Court in the present appeal.
In that background, we have heard Shri Amit Sharma, learned companynsel for the appellant, Shri Nishant R. Katneshwarkar learned companynsel for the respondent State and perused the appeal papers.
The judgment passed by the Sessions Court and companyfirmed by the High Court in so far acquitting accused Nos.2 to 6 has attained finality and as such the role of the said accused need number be adverted to in this appeal.
The learned Sessions Court having companysidered the matter in detail, through its judgment dated August 16, 2006 has companyvicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay the fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default thereof, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Though the incident had occurred in the said manner and the allegation was against all the accused as already numbericed above, except the appellant accused No.1, the remaining accused have been acquitted.
2 to 6 were, on the other hand, acquitted of all the charges.
The said persons had thereafter rushed towards the companyplainant Baburao PW 1 and Rashtrapal PW 8 to assault them but they fled away and went to Nanded Rural police station and lodged the companyplaint.
The accused No.2 Keshav, accused No.3 Dilip and accused No.4 Digambar are stated to have caught hold of Dhammanand in the house of Dilip and accused No.1 Kamlakar who was armed with katti inflicted the blow with the katti on the neck of Dhammanand due to which Dhammanand died on the spot instantaneously.
At about 10.00 p.m., Sheshrao, the father of Kailash accompanied by Kailash went to Baburao who is the uncle of Dhammanand and lodged a companyplaint at Nanded Rural Police Station.
The appellant pushed Kailash who sustained injuries on his person.
In that backdrop, at about 00.15 a.m. on March 13, 2005 the said Baburao PW 1 , Rashtrapal PW 8 and others went to the house of Dilip i.e., accused No.3.
The accused did number plead guilty Reason of the charge and had sought that he be tried.
The accused Nos.5 and 6 were standing at the door and prevented them from entering the house and pushed them.
The appellant herein, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the said judgment dated August 16, 2008 passed by the Sessions Court was before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2006.
In the above background, the companyviction ordered by the Sessions Court and upheld by the High Court in holding the accused No.1 alone guilty of the charge would arise for companysideration in this appeal.
The delay of 797 days was companydoned on January 30, 2012 and leave was granted on September 14, 2012.
The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused Nos.2 to 6 had also assailed the judgment dated August 16, 2008 to that extent in Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2008.
During the meeting on March 12, 2005 at about 9.00 p.m. the electric supply went off all of a sudden.
He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code.
The appellant Kamlakar, is stated to have enquired with Kailash alleging that he was the cause for disconnection of electric supply, which led to exchange of abuses between the said Kailash and the appellant Kamlakar.
The said incident lead to a situation where the accused raised an issue as to why such companyplaint was lodged and on having enquired with the Dhammanand why his brother Kailash started the quarrel, asked Dhammanand to accompany them to settle the dispute amicably.
2 to 6 were also charged of the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the accused persons were the members of an unlawful assembly and pursuant to the companymon object, had companymitted riot and armed with deadly weapon like katti companymitted murder of one Dhammanand, on March 13, 2005 at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2019.05.31 173927 IST about 00.15 Hrs at Dhanegaon.
The same was registered as C.R.No.55 of 2005 and further investigation was held and the charge sheet was filed.
S. Bopanna,J. The appellant herein was arrayed as accused No.1 in the proceedings before the Sessions Case No.87 of 2005.
Along with the appellant, five other accused, namely, accused Nos.
