In appeal, the primary stand of the accused persons was that PWs 2 and 6 being related to the deceased their evidence should number be acted upon particularly when Tulshiram and the younger son of the deceased were number examined.
Stand of State was that as others were known, there was numberneed for TI Parade.
314/2001 and 346/2001 were disposed of.
Tulshiram tried to rescue Bharat from the clutches of the accused but the accused did number allow him to help the deceased.
In support of the appeal the stands taken before the High Court are re iterated by learned companynsel for the appellants and for the State.
Additionally, the TI parade was held only in respect of two accused appellants Sudam and Mangal and number in respect of other accused persons as they were allegedly known to the prosecution witnesses.
The companyplainant Chandrakala thereafter went towards the persons of village Londhari and stayed there along with her sons.
In the report, she mentioned the names of five accused persons and one unknown person.
At that time, work of uprooting the groundnut crop was in progress in the field of deceased Bharat and several persons from village Londhari were working in his field.
She also stated in the report that accused persons assaulted her husband because one year before the incident, there were murders of one Atmaram and Laxman of village Yehala and in the said crime, her husband deceased Bharat was arrested and, therefore, the assailants for taking revenge of the said murders, and had assaulted Bharat in the incident in question.
On the basis of the report lodged by the companyplainant investigation was undertaken.
When Bharat was being assaulted, he shouted for help loudly saying Chandrakala, I am dying.
The trial Court did number analyse their evidence and held that merely because PWs 2 and 6 were the wife and son of the deceased that did number render their evidence suspect.
They were armed with axes, sticks, crowbars and beat Bharat with the said weapons.
When Bharat came out of the house, five to six persons encircled Bharat in the companyrtyard of his house and started beating him.
The persons from village Londhari thereafter left the place.
Accused persons are Namdev A 1 , Santosh A 2 , Mangal A 3 , Subhash A 4 and Sudam A 6 .
The assailants also came there and threatened them number to disclose the incident and asked them to leave.
It was also submitted that PW 2 cannot be believed as she did number know the names of the accused persons and the names were told to her by PW 6.
After some time, at about 8.00 p.m. accused Namdev Tarpe came to the house of the companyplainant and told Bharat that persons from village Yehala were companying to beat him and he should run away from the spot, or release the dogs.
It is the case of the prosecution that Shivcharan PW6 , son of the Complainant Chandrakala PW2 as well as Taqnaji, son of Shakuntaiabai, the keep of deceased Bharat and Shakuntalabai were residing in the said house.
On the day of incident, Shakuntala was number present as she had gone to Pusad.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed and as the accused persons i.e. seven in number in two Criminal Appeals before High Court pleaded innocence, trial was held.
There was a pit dug in front of the house of Bharat for companystruction of one room.
It is to be numbered that A 1 was absconding and therefore separate charge sheet was filed against him.
The companyplainant Chandrakala along with her sons went near her husband deceased Bharat and numbericed injuries on his person, who had already succumbed to those injuries on the spot.
At the time of incident, she was residing with her husband Bharat Mukinda Kharat hereinafter referred to as the deceased and two sons in the house situated in the village Dharkanha.
The accused persons also left the place.
Further, the evidence of Shivcharan PW 6 only relates to accused Shamrao and, therefore, Section 149 has numberapplication.
The companyplainant stayed there for the night and on the next day, she went to Police Station, Pusad Rural and lodged a report.
The companyplainant along with her sons thereafter went to the house of Police Patil of village Dharkanha and narrated the incident.
The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of Chandrakala PW 2 and Shivcharan PW 6 and found the accused persons guilty.
The companyplainant asked her son Shivcharan PW 6 the names of the assailants.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The Complainant Chandrakalabai widow of Bharat Kharat was a resident of Village Dharkanha.
On 7th June, 1998, at about 1.00 p.m., deceased Bharat and one Tulshiram Vadar had gone to Pusad and returned home at about 7.00 p.m. After that, deceased Bharat was taking meal in his house and Tulshiram went to sleep in front of the house.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, upholding the companyviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The companyplainant Chandrakala went to Tulsiram and awakened him.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeals.
Shivcharan told her that the assailants were from village Yehala and gave their names as Namdeo Tarpe, Shamrao Behade, Subhash Behade, Santosh Behade, Sahebrao and one unknown person to whom he knew by face.
By the impugned order two Criminal Appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal Nos.
