Bhonaji succumbed to his injuries on October 2, 1966.
The police investigated and challaned nine accused including appellants Ninaji and Raoji.
r Samadhan and his relations then went to their house, which was close by.
He did number state about the infliction of any injury on the head, by any of the appellants.
It was alleged that on September 29, 1966, at about 6 p.m., there was a quarrel between the two factions at Gothan, near the house of Bhonaji, because of the impounding of a she but also of Ananda who was one of the nine accused in the case by Bhonajis third son Madhukar and of the company of Ninajis nephew Narain.
She is the daughter in law of the deceased, being the wife of Rambhau.
181 of 1971 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 25th and 28th September, 1970 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
While her statement may go to prove the presence of the appellants at the place of incident, it does number prove that both of them dealt blows on the head of the deceased.
There was some altercation between accused Ananda and Samadhan and the parties beat each other.
In his cross examination he admitted that he did number state before the police about the place where the appellants dealt blows with their sticks on the person of Bhonaji.
While accused Ninaji and Raoji were companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid the remaining five accused were companyvicted and sentenced for offences under ss.
Deoki Bai P.W. 3 , SA Ram P.W. S and Sukhdev P.W. 7 have been examined as eye witness of the beating which was given to Bhonaji.
Sri Ram P.W. 5 stated that appellant Ninaji gave two blows with a stick on the head of Bhonaji, and that appellant Raoji gave a blow with a khunt near his neck.
It was then that injuries were inflicted an his person by the appellants Ninaji and Raoji.
We have examined the statement of Smt.
The evidence on record therefore went to show that the, appellants did number have the companymon intention of giving a beating to Bhonaji when they reached his house for, as has been shown, they found him sitting outside the house on his oota but passed him by in search of Samadhan who was dressing his injuries inside the house.
Samadhan, who had received some injuries at gothan, went inside his house to dress them up.
The High Court has held that their evidence was acceptable, and that there was numberhing to cast any doubt on their evidence.
Bhonaji asked Tulsi Ram Chowkidar to make a report and to get ready a bullock cart for going to the police station.
Deoki Bai P.W. 3 also.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Appellants Ninaji and Raoji were two out of nine accused who were challaned for the companymission of various offences in an incident which took place in mauza Narkhed in Buldana district on September 29, 1966, as a result of some petty quarrel between Bhonaji and his sons Samadhan and Rambhau on the one hand and the appellants and their party on the other.
Reports of the incident were lodged at the police station.
24 of 1968 with Crl.
It would thus appear that the High Court companyld number possibly have reached the companyclusion, on the basis of the statements of Smt.
That leaves the statement of Sukhdev P.W. 7 for companysideration.
lt was alleged that the nine accused, including the present appellants, went to gothan.
She stated that she had heard the numberse, but came out only after feeding her child and saw that Bhonaji hat fallen down on his face and the appellants were running away.
Kalawati P.W. 2 , Smt.
100 of 1968.
A. No.
Harjinder Singh, for the appellant B. Wad and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J. This is an appeal of Ninaji Raoji Boudha hereinafter referred to as Ninaji and Raoji Gianu Boudha hereinafter referred to as Raoji , against the appellate judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 25/28, 1970.
Deoki Bai P.W. 3 , Sri Ram P.W. S and Sukhdev P.W. 7 that more than one blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased, or that the one blow which was found there as a result of the post mortem examination was inflicted by the one or the other of the two appellants.
Out of those injuries, one was a forceful blow on the head which caused a depressed fracture and fissures all over, and resulted in the ultimate death of Bhonai The other injuries were on the neck back side , knees and the right elbow of the deceased and were simple injuries.
The Additional Sessions Judge of Khamgaon companyvicted them of offences under ss.
His father Bhonaji sat on an oota in front of the house.
His statement companyld number also therefore prove the infliction of blows by both the appellants on the head of the deceased.
Ninaji and Raoji were also companyvicted for an offence under s 325 read with s.149 I.P.C. for participating in the unlawful assembly which was held to be responsible for causing grievous injuries to Bhonajis sons Samadhan and Rambhau, Mr. Harjinder Singh, Amicus Curiae, stated on behalf of the appellants that he did number think it worthwhile challenging the companyviction of appellants Ninaji and Raoji for that offence, and that he would companyfine the appeal to their companyviction for the offence under s. 302/ 34 I.P.C. for causing the death of Bhonaji.
It is alleged that appellants Ninaji and Raoji, and accused Parashram, gave a beating to Bhonaji at the oota as a result of which he fell down, and the remaining accused forcibly took Samadhan to a place near the house of one Trimbak and beat him there.
As has been shown.
He merely stated that while he companyld number state the exact number of the accused or their features, he saw that, out of seven or eight persons, three beat Bhonaji with sticks.
We would therefore companycern ourselves with the incident which resulted in Bhonajis death and the companyviction of the appellants therefor.
