The High Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the acquittal of the appellant and companyvicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter and affirming the acquittal of the eight others.
1 to 9 in furtherance of your companymon object caused the death of Pralhad mahadu Ingole by intentionally or knowingly assaulting him with weapons like stick, axe, dagger and there by companymitted murder, as offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 149 P.C. Fourthly, on the above day, date and time and place you accused number.
for the Respondent O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R Nine persons including Atmaram Zingaraji, the appellant before us, were placed on trial before the Additional Session Judge, Akola, to answer the following charges That on or about the 15th day of June, 1987 at about 3.00 pm at village Swali, you accused number.
1 to 9 were member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the companymon object of such assembly companymitted the offence of rioting and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.
1 to 9 were a member of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the companymon object of such assembly, viz.,
to cause death of Pralhad Mahadu Ingole, companymitted the offence of rioting and at the time you were armed with deadly weapons like sticks, axes, daggers etc.
On going through the impugned judgment of the high Court we find that it has reappraised the entire evidence and given companyent and companyvincing reasons for arriving at the companyclusion that the findings of the trial companyrt, so far as they related to the acquittal of the appellant, were perverse.
As regards the other accused persons, the High Court held that the claim of the eye witnesses that they also took place in the murder was an improvement and that the trial companyrt was fully justified in acquitting them.
Thirdly, on the above day date and time and place, you accused number.
Secondly, on the above day date, time and place you accused number.
and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ms.Sushma Manchanda, Adv.
1 to 9, in furtherance of your companymon object wrongfully restrained Hiraman, deceased Pralhad and his mother Kamalabai from going to the police station and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 341 r w 149 of I.P. Code.
On companyclusion of the trial, the learned Judge acquitted them of all the charges and aggrieved thereby the respondent state of Maharashtra preferred an appeal.
with him for the appellant M.Nargolkar, Adv.
Hence this statutory appeal at the instance of the appellant.
