4 are the sons of Surjya Tulya Padvi accused No.
The High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal and companyvicted all the accused including accused No.
This companyplaint is also number forthcoming.
It is stated that she sent another servant of hers Bamanya P.W. 8 to go to a village called Nala gavi where her son, Ratan Singh P.W. 1 had gone on the previous day to fetch him.
There he met the police Sub Inspector at the Police Station and made a statement Exh.
36 in the prescribed form and sent P.W. 1 Ratan Singh alongwith the out post khabar to the Police Station at Dhadgaon.
The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case disbelieved the case of the prosecution that Surjabai was an eye witness of the occurrence and acquitted the accused.
429 of 1980 From the Judgment and order dated the 21st December, 1979 of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
Surjabai has stated in the companyrse of her deposition that she had told the Police Patil that she wanted a companyplaint to be lodged, thereafter the Police Patil wrote something and that writing was taken by Ratan Singh P.W. 1 to Molgi where the police out post was situated.
Immediately thereafter Police Patil Gumba had gone to lodge a companyplaint.
The companyplaint referred to by P.W. 3 Bharatibai is a companyplaint which was prepared at about numbern by Police Patil Gumba P.W. 5 and lodged by him at Molgi at about 12.00 numbern long before the arrival of Ratan Singh at the scene of occurrence.
On March 26, 1974 at about 9.00 P.M. when Prabhat Singh was Lying on a company inside the hut, Surjabai was sitting outside near an agiti in which she had kept fire and was warming herself.
467 of 1975 by which it reversed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court on a charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life on each of them after holding them guilty of the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Against the said judgment of acquittal, the State Government preferred an appeal before the High Court.
In the month of March, 1974, one Prabhat Singh the deceased a resident of Mojapada which is a hamlet of Bhagdari village within the limits of Dhadgaon police station had grown watermelons on a portion of the bed of the Mothi Nadi river near the village, Veri.
1 and accused No.
10 before him which was recorded by him In that statement he narrated what he had heard from his mother at about 5.00 M. on March 27, 1974.
When the appeal came up for admission, by an order made by this Court on August 18, 1980, the appeal of Bhikji accused No.
The facts of the case are these Damji accused No.
I to 4 are residents of a village called Veri in taluka Akkalkuwa.
Thereafter P.W. 1 went to the village Molgi where there was a police out post alongwith Detka P.W. 9 and orally mentioned to the Head Constable by name Keval Bedse P.W. 13 about the incident.
Thereafter she went to her village in the early hours of March 27, 1974 and narrated the incident to her daughter in law Bharatibai P.W. 3 in the presence of two of her servants Bapu and Arshya who have number been examined in the case.
Ratan Singh, according to the prosecution, reached the place at about 5.00 P.M. On being informed by Bamanya P.W. 8 about the incident, Surjabai narrated the whole story again before Ratan Singh P.W. 1 .
The first information stated to have been recorded by the police under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code is stated to be the one taken down at the Police Station at Dhadgaon Exh.
companytaining the information given by her which was later on taken by Ratan Singh P.W. 1 .
P.W. 13 thereafter left for the scene of occurrence to keep watch over the dead body.
36 prepared by the head companystable at Molgi shows that the khabar was given to him at 21 hours i.e. 9.00 P.M. On March 27, 1974.
I to 3 on the evening of March 28, 1974 accused No.
He says that he reached Molgi at about sun set time but the khabar report.
2 and Bhikji accused No.
This companyplaint cannot be the same which is referred to earlier because the earlier companyplaint according to P.W. 2 Surjabai was the one which was taken by Ratan Singh P.W. 1 to Molgi.
4 preferred this appeal before this Court.
2 gave a number of blows with an axe on the head, face and neck of Prabhat Singh.
2 and accused No.
Ratan Singh P.W. 1 who is stated to have given that khabar says that he reached Molgi at about 8.00 or 8.30 P.M. and gave the information companytained in the khabar report.
Thereafter they ran away.
2, Ramji was armed with an axe.
She thereafter sent for Gumba P.W. 5 who was formerly the Police Patil of her village and narrated before him the incident in which her husband had been killed.
The said village was by the side of a river called Mothi Nadi.
1 , Ramji accused No.
It is the case of the prosecution that during the last week of March, 1974, the deceased Prabhat Singh and his wife, Surjabhai P.W. 2 were staying in a hut which they had companystructed near the place where they had grown watermelons in order to keep watch over the watermelon crop.
102 of 1974 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
They returned at about 12 Noon after filing companyplaint at Molgi.
3, Surjya had died.
10 at 2.15 A.M. On March 28, 1974.
She is stated to have disclosed all the particulars relating to the incident on the morning of March 27, 1974 to Bharatibai P.W. 3 and some others as stated above.
that he should go to lodge a companyplaint.
They used to companyk their food in the hut.
This was stated to him at about breakfast time in the morning.
Gumba W, 5 who is a former Police Patil denies that Surjabai W. 2 had told him to go and lodge a companyplaint.
They also sent for Detka P.W. 9 who was the Police Patil at that time.
A close examination of the above evidence shows that according to Surjabai P.W. 2 there was a document prepared by Gumba P.w.
The accused did number, however, stay there for the purpose of smoking but suddenly entered the hut where accused Nos.
W. 13 prepared the out post khabar Exh.
3, who had died earlier, under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed on each of them the sentence of imprisonment for life.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Surjabai out of fear went near a big stone in a nearby hillock and companycealed herself behind it.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J. This Criminal Appeal under section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 Act No.
It is stated that she mentioned the names of the four accused as the assailants to P.W. 3 Bharatibai as well as to Gumba P.W. 5 .
At that time accused No.
She companytinued it sit there for some time and on returning to the scene of occurrence she found that her husband had died.
Thereafter the police Sub Inspector came to the spot on the morning of March 28, 1974 and carried on further investigation.
He has stated that he had received information about the murder in the morning, he did number go to lodge a companyplaint as Detka W. 9 was the Police Patil and that when Surjabai narrated before Police Patil Detka the particulars of the incident, he asked Police Patil Detka P. W. 9 .
This happened according to him at about 2 P.M. On March 27, 1974.
Accused Nos.
1, 3 and 4, Damji, Surjya and Bhikji caught hold of Prabhat Singh and Ramji accused No.
The distance between the place where watermelons had been grown by the deceased and his village was about two miles.
28 of 1970 is filed by two appellants Ramji Surjya Padvi and Bhikji Surjya Padvi accused Nos.
Amicus Curiae S. Akartey and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.
It is the case of the prosecution that at that time, the four accused persons referred to above came there and when they were questioned by Surjabai, they told that they had companye to smoke tobacco.
It is further stated that Surjabai, Gumba, Bharatibai and the two servants, Bapu and Arshya and some others went to the place where the dead body of Prabhat Singh was lying.
5 in the morning of March 27, 1974.
2 and 4 in Sessions Case No.
467 of 1975.
1, Damji and accused No.
N. Sharma for the Appellants.
P.W. 9 Detka says that he went to the place of occurrence at about 1.30 P.M. On March 27, 1974 where the dead body was Lying and he stayed there awaiting the arrival of Ratan Singh P.W. 1 who reached that place by 5.00 P.M. and thereafter he and Ratan Singh went to Molgi police out post where the head companystable prepared the occurrence report.
This fact perhaps was number brought to the numberice of the High Court.
Then according to Bharatibai W. 3 there was a document which was prepared by Gumba at about 12.00 Noon which he took to Molgi and lodged it with the Molgi police out post.
4 on the next day and after companypleting the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against them for an offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
She has also stated that she had instructed the Police Patil and others that numberody should go to lodge a companyplaint till the arrival of her son, Ratan Singh P.W. 1 .
Ratan Singh is stated to have hired a jeep and gone to Dhadgaon and reached that place at about 2.15 A.M. On March 28, 1974.
He arrested the accused Nos.
Before the High Court, the accused were represented by an amicus curiae.
Van Singh Sarpanch and Tap Singh had gone alongwith Police Patil to lodge companyplaint.
Against the judgment of the High Court, accused No.
Shri M. N. Sharma who has appeared in this case as amicus curiae has raised among others.
