Bombay High CourtSanjay S/O Aashroba Upadhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 January, 2010Author:Shrihari P. DavareBench:P.V.Hardas,Shrihari P.Davare1




                                                                           
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                   AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD




                                                   
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2007




                                                  
    1         Sanjay s/o Aashroba Upadhe,




                                         
              age 28 yrs., occ. Labour,
              r/o Waghala, Tq. Parli-Vaijnath,
              District Beed,ig
    2         Anna @ Baban s/o Pandhari Upadhe,
              age 23 yrs., occ. Labour,
                          
              r/o as above.                              ...Appellants



              VERSUS
          
       



    1         The State of Maharashtra                   ...Respondent





                                    .....
    Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the appellants

    Shri K.J.Ghute Patil, APP for the respondent
                                      .....





                         CORAM :      P.V.HARDAS
                                     AND
                                     SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ.

                         DATED     : 5th January, 2010.




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::
                                     2




                                                                           
                                                   
    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.)1         The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and

    order rendered     by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai,

    District Beed on 18.4.2007, convicting appellant nos. 1 and 2




                                        
    herein for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Codeand sentencing them to undergo the term for

    life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default
                            
    of payment of fine amount to suffer R.I. for six months; and also

    convicting appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable
          


    underSections 394r/w 34 of theIndian Penal Codeand
       



    sentencing them to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine

    of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer





    R.I. for three months.2         The factual matrix are summarized as under :-It is the case of the prosecution that PW9 PSI Shankar

    Harale was attached to Shirsala police station at the relevant time

    I.e. in the month of October, 2004 and on 23.10.2004 at about

    8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. , on receipt of a telephonic call from Parli

    (R) police station about the murder and that dead body was lying::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::3in the vicinity of Waka shivar, he along with police staff visited

    Waka shivar and found one dead body of a person, namely Bapu




                                                     
    Rustum Salgar near tower line and about 10 people were present

    near the said dead body. PW9 PSI Shankar Harale              deputed a




                                                    
    constable    there   and     made     inquiry   and    recorded         the

    complaint/report (Exh.27) of PW1 Ganpati Salgar in police station




                                          
    Shirsala at about 3.00 a.m. on 24.10.2004 under C.R.No. 73 of

    2004.3           The contents of the said complaint reveal that the

    complainant Ganpati and victim Bapu Salgar are brothers of each

    other and on 23.10.2004       at about 3.00 p.m. deceased Bapu
          


    Salgar borrowed Rs. 500/- from the complainant PW1 Ganpati and
       



    he had already amount of Rs.400/- with him and accordingly he

    possessed total Rs. 900/-. Thereafter at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30





    p.m. the victim Bapu Salgar proceeded towards the village on a

    rented bicycle along with two villagers. It is alleged that thereafter

    deceased Bapu Salgar was alone and on seeing that, accused no.1 Sanjay went to him near Waka shivar and hit a stone on him and

    thereby victim Bapu Salgar fell down. Thereafter accused no.2

    Anna @ Baban caught hold of both the legs of victim Bapu Salgar,

    who fell in flat position and thereupon accused no.1 Sanjay lifted

    nearby lying heavy stone and hit it on the head of victim Bapu::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::4Salgar and snatched Rs.800/- from the victim's custody. The said

    complaint    further   reveals    that     during   the   course      of    said




                                                          
    occurrence of incident, the victim shouted and asked accused no.1 Sanjay to take money for him and requested not to assault him.It is also alleged that at this juncture, the persons who were

    grazing their cattle, namely PW2 Ramkrishna, PW4 Nagnath and




                                              
    PW5 Laxman rushed towards the assailants to catch hold of them,

    but the said assailants left their bicycles at the said place and fled
                             
    away.4           During the course of investigation, PW9 PSI Shankar

    Harale      prepared    the      inquest    panchanama        (Exh.18)        on
          


    24.10.2004, as well as visited the spot of incident at Waka shivar
       



    and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh.35) and also seized

    three bicycles and two stones and blood stained clay and plain





    clay from the spot of incident. PW9 PSI Shankar Harale also

    recorded statements of relatives of deceased Bapu Salgar and

    other witnesses near the spot of incident on 24.10.2004. He also





    seized the clothes of the deceased Bapu Salgar under the seizure

    panchanama (Exh.19) on 24.10.2004.5           PW8 PSI Ramesh Munde was incharge of police station

    Shirsala at the relevant time and he received charge of further::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::5investigation of C.R.No. 73 of 2004 on 24.10.2004. Accordingly,

    during the investigation, he arrested appellant nos. 1 and 2




                                                     
    (original accused nos. 1 and 2) under the said crime on

    26.10.2004 and prepared the arrest panchanamas (Exhs. 60 and




                                                    
    61 respectively) to that effect. It is also alleged that on

    30.10.2004, accused no.1 Sanjay expressed his willingness to




                                         
    produce the clothes and accordingly memorandum panchanama

    (Exh.62) was prepared and thereafter appellant no.1 (original
                            
    accused no.12) led the police personnel      and panchas near the
                           
    cattle shed of Tarkase and he produced two shirts from the wall of

    cattle shed which were seized under memorandum panchanama

    (Exh.63).6           Thereafter during the course of investigation,       PW8 PSI

    Ramesh      Munde sent muddemal articles (Exhs. 1 to 9) to the





    office of Chemical Analyser for examination purpose along with

    the forwarding letter (Exh.64) and chemical analysis report

    thereof dated 13.10.2004 is produced at Exh. 23/C. Moreover,





    during the course of investigation, the postmortem report (Exh.57/C) was collected, which disclosed the cause of death of victim

    as cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to vital organ of brain.However, viscera was preserved. So also, the provisional cause of

    death certificate was obtained.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::67         Accordingly, after completion of investigation, the




                                                    
    police personnel filed the charge sheet before the learned Judicial

    Magistrate, First Class, Parli Vaijnath on 3.1.2005. Since the said




                                                   
    case was triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate

    committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Ambajogai on




                                         
    28.4.2005. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

    Ambajogai, District Beed framed the charge against accused nos.1 and 2 i.e. appellants herein at Exh.11 for the offences
                            
    punishable underSections 394and302r/wSection 34of                the

    Indian Penal Code. The appellants herein pleaded not guilty              to

    the said charges and claimed to be tried.8         Accordingly,   appellants   herein   faced      trial    under

    Sessions Case No. 35 of 2005 in respect of said charges.                To





    substantiate the said charges, the prosecution examined in as

    much as nine witnesses, as mentioned below :-PW1       Ganpati Salgar       Complainant - brother of the
                                   victim, who produced the
                                   complaint, dated 24.10.2004
                                   at Exh. 27/C.

    PW2       Ramkrishna Salgar Eye witness and spot panch to
                                Spot Panchayana Exh. 35 and
                                also panch to seizure of clothes
                                of victim Exh.19.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::7PW3       Ashok Salgar        Panch to inquest panchanama
                                  (Exh.18)




                                                   
    PW4       Nagnath Salgar      Eye witness

    PW5       Laxman Maske        Eye witness




                                                  
    PW6       Girjappa Salgar     Eye witness

    PW7       Dr.Ravindra         Postmortem doctor, who produced
              Deshmukh            postmortem report Exh. 57 and
                                  provisional cause of death




                                         
                                  certificate dated 24.10.2004PW9
                                  Exh. 58, and also C.A. Report of
                             ig   viscera Exh. 22.

    PW8       PSI Ramesh Munde Second Investigating Officer
                           
    PW9       PSI Shankar Harale First Investigating Officer
           


    9         The defence of the appellants was of total denial and itis submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present

    case and they are not concerned with the alleged offences and





    they are innocent.10        Before dealing with       the submissions advanced by





    learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to advert to the

    material evidence adduced by the prosecution, and coming to the

    testimony of PW1 Ganpati in that respect, which discloses that he

    and victim Bapu Salgar are brothers and on 24.10.2004 victim

    Bapu Salgar borrowed Rs.500/- from him and the victim already

    was possessing Rs.400/- and accordingly the victim possessed in::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::8all Rs.900/- and proceeded to Shirsala weekly bazar. He also

    stated that Barku Maske and PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar who were




                                                    
    the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, informed him that while

    returning back at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. on bicycle when




                                                   
    deceased Bapu Salgar came near Waka shivar near tower line,

    appellant no.1 Sanjay pelted a stone in the direction of victim and




                                        
    thereby he failed down and thereafter accused no.2 Anna caught

    hold of his both legs and fallen him down
                             ig                     in flat position and

    appellant no.1 Sanjay assaulted him by means of a big stone on
                           
    his head and thereby caused      fracture of skull and thereafter

    appellant no.1 Sanjay snatched Rs.800/- from the victim. At this

    juncture, since victim was crying, nearby persons i.e. PW2
           


    Ramkrishna, PW4 Nagnath and PW5 Laxman rushed to the said
        



    spot and tried to catch hold of the assailants, but they fled away

    leaving their bicycles at the spot of incident. He further stated





    that he lodged report about the said incident with the police which

    is marked as Exh. 27.11        During    cross-examination,    PW1     Ganpati         clearly

    admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the incident of

    his brother Bapurao's murder. Moreover, omissions were taken

    out in the cross-examination in respect of the contentions that

    Barku Maske , PW5 Laxman and PW4 Nagnath stayed near dead::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::9body of his brother and Barku Maske and Ramkrishna informed

    him about the said incident and subsequently PW1 Ganpati and




                                                    
    other villagers went to the spot by tractor and so that bicycles

    were lying on the spot and head of his brother was broken and




                                                   
    brain particles came out. So also suggestions were given to PW1

    Ganpati that deceased Bapu Salgar was addicted to liquor and he




                                       
    used to sell liquor and at the time of incident he had consumed

    the liquor and he was not on talking terms with Bapu Salgar, but
                           
    same were denied by him.12          After assessing the testimony of PW1 complainant

    Ganpati Salgar, it is clear that he has not witnessed the alleged
           


    occurrence of the incident and in categorical terms he admitted
        



    that he has no personal knowledge about the incident of his

    brother Bapurao's murder, and therefore, except recording the





    complaint by PW1 Ganpati which is produced at Exh.27/C, his

    testimony    does not take the prosecution case forward in

    constructive manner to connect the appellants with the alleged





    crime.   Accordingly, the deposition of PW1 Ganpati cannot be

    construed as useful testimony to the prosecution except recording

    the complaint Exh. 27/C on 24.10.2004 by him.13          That takes us to the deposition of PW2 Ramkrishna::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::10Salgar, wherein he stated that the alleged incident took place on

    23.10.2004 at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and he had been to




                                                  
    his land for taking the cattle for watering on stream and he saw

    that accused no.1 Sanjay and appellant no. 2 Anna @ Baban were




                                                 
    proceeding on   their bicycles from Waka to Waghala side. At a

    distance of aout 200 feet he also saw that both the accused




                                       
    persons left their bicycles and they were running towards village

    Waka and victim Bapu Salgar was coming from Waka to Waghala
                          
    on the bicycle. He further stated that he saw on the bank of the
                         
    stream that appellant no.1 Sanjay pelted stone in the direction of

    victim Bapu Salgar and due to that he left cycle and sat on

    ground. Thereafter appellant no.1 Anna @ Baban also had been
           


    there and he caught hold of his both the legs and thereupon the
        



    victim fell down facing the earth. At that time victim Bapu cried

    loudly, "Sanjay Maze Sarva Paise Ghe Mala Maru Nakos".However, appellant no.1 Sanjay lifted a big stone weighing about

    10 to 15 Kgs. by his both hands and assaulted on his head. PW2

    Ramkrishna further stated that he tried to chase the assailants.PW5 Laxman also followed them, but both the accused ran away.He also stated that he saw the incident of pelting of stone on the

    head of Bapu Salgar from the distance of 200 to 250 feet.14        PW2 Ramkrishna further stated that he saw the victim,::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::11his skull was damaged and blood was oozing and his brain was

    out of skull. Hence, PW4 Nagnath and PW5 Laxman stayed near




                                                       
    the dead body and PW2 Ramkrishna and Barku Maske went to

    village Waghala, who informed about the incident to family




                                                      
    members of victim Bapu and Sarpanch as well as police patil.15        The   testimony    of   PW2   further    discloses      that     on

    24.10.2004 he was called by police on the spot of incident and
                            
    police prepared rough sketch map of the incident, as well as
                           
    prepared the spot panchanama and police personnel seized blood

    stained stones (one big size and one small size) and also seized

    blood stained clay and plain clay and took the measurements of
           


    the spot of incident while drawing the spot panchanama Exh. 35.The testimony of PW2 Ramkrishna further discloses that on the

    same day i.e. on 24.10.2004 the police personnel seized the





    clothes on the person of deceased in his presence under

    panchanama, which is produced at Exh.19.16        During      cross-examination,          PW2        Ramkrishna

    categorically stated that there is facility for watering the cattle in

    his land. The topography of the spot of incident was brought on

    record through the cross-examination of PW2 Ramkrishna. PW2

    Ramkrishna also stated in the cross-examination categorically::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::12that he did not state about the incident in the night of 23.10.2004

    to police and police brought him from police station for the




                                                      
    purpose of spot panchanama and at about 2.00 p.m. he had been

    to police station Shirsala and at that time   police seized clothes of




                                                     
    Bapu Salgar. He also stated that his statement was recorded on

    24.10.2004 at 2.00 p.m. prior to seizure panchanama of the




                                         
    clothes of the deceased.17Considering the testimony of PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar, it
                          
    is material to note that as stated by PW2 in his cross-examination

    that there was facility of watering to the catle in his land and

    therefore, question arises when there was facility of watering the
           


    cattle in his land, why PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar went to the stream
        



    for watering his cattle and no plausible explanation has been

    given by the prosecution in that respect. Moreover, even





    assuming for the sake of assumption without admitting that PW2

    Ramkrishna witnessed the alleged incident dated 23.10.2004, the

    question arises why he remained silent till the next day i.e.





    24.10.2004 when he was called for recording spot panchanama

    and why his statement was recorded on the next day ie. On

    24.10.2004 at about 2.00 p.m. and why PW2 Ramkrishna did not

    disclose the occurrence of incident before police personnel on

    24.10.2004 itself and the prosecution has miserably failed to give::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::13the convincing explanation therefor. Hence, suspicion is created in

    respect of very presence of PW2 Ramkrishna at the place of




                                                     
    incident at the relevant time i.e. at the time of occurrence of the

    incident and suspicion is also created whether PW2 Ramkrishna




                                                    
    really witnessed the occurrence of the incident and accordingly

    the testimony of PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar cannot be construed as




                                           
    eye witness, since it comes under the cloud of suspicion, to

    connect the appellants with the alleged crime.18         Turning to the deposition of PW4 Nagnath                Salgar,

    another eye witness, wherein he stated that he knows appellant

    nos.1 and 2 herein, who belong to his village and on the date and
           


    at the time of incident, he was grazing the bullocks in his land and
        



    at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. he heard voice of Bapu Salgar,

    who was saying that, "Mase Paise Ghe Pan Mala Maru Nako". On





    hearing his shouts, PW4 Nagnath, PW2 Ramkrishna, Barku Maske

    and PW5 Laxman ran towards Bapu Salgar and saw that accused

    no.2 Baban had caught hold of legs of Bapu Salgar and accused





    no.1 Sanjay lifted stone and assaulted on the head of Bapu

    Salgar.   Accused left their bicycles   and fled away towards the

    stone quarry. He also stated that they tried to chase the accused

    persons, but same was in vain.          After some time, Sarpanch,

    police patil and brother of Bapu Salgar came to the spot of::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::14incident. They saw that head of Bapu was broken and blood was

    oozing and he was lying in dead condition.19        During cross-examination, he gave the topography of




                                                  
    the spot of incident. He also stated that at the time of incident,

    sun set could have been at 6.30 p.m. He also stated that he did




                                        
    not state before the police that he heard the noise of Bapu Salgar.Suggestion was given to him that deceased Bapu Salgar was
                           
    having habit of drinking liquor, but same was denied by him. It
                          
    was also suggested to him that he was not present at the time of

    occurrence of incident, but same also was denied by him.20        Considering the testimony of PW4 Nagnath, it is
        



    material to note that although he has stated in his deposition that

    at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. he heard voice of Bapu Salgar and





    on hearing his shouts, he and other villagers ran towards victim

    Bapu Salgar, PW2 Ramkrishna, another alleged eye witness, has

    not corroborated the testimony of PW4 Nagnath in that respect





    and PW2 has nowhere stated that on hearing the voice/shouts of

    deceased Bapu Salgar the nearby villagers rushed towards the

    spot of incident. In fact, PW2 Ramkrishna has nowhere stated in

    his deposition that on hearing the voice/shouts of victim Bapu

    Salgar, PW2 Ramkrishna and other villagers rushed towards him::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::15and hence, the very prelude of arrival of PW4 Nagnath on the

    place of incident is in doldrums in respect of presence of PW4




                                                  
    Nagnath at the time of occurrence of incident and consequently

    witnessing of the very incident by him.      The said aspect is




                                                 
    substantiated by the very admission of PW4 Nagnath in his cross-examination, wherein he has categorically stated that he did not




                                       
    state before police that he heard voice of Bapu Salgar. Thus, the

    testimony of PW4 Nangath Salgar cannot be construed as
                          
    testimony of eye witness to connect the appellants herein with the
                         
    alleged crime.21        That takes us to the deposition of PW5 Laxman Maske,
           


    wherein he has stated that he knows appellant nos. 1 and 2
        



    before the court, who belong to village Waghala. He also stated

    that he was present at his cattle shed and he heard noise while





    he was tying bullocks that, "Sanjay Mala Maru Nakos, Paise Ghe".Subsequently, appellant no.2 Baban caught hold of legs of victim

    Bapu Salgar and appellant no.1 Sanjay hit by means of stone on





    his head. He also stated that thereafter on hearing noise, he and

    Barku Maske rushed towards the direction of accused and noise,

    as well as PW2 Ramkrishna and PW4 Nagnath also rushed towards

    the spot, but appellant nos. 1 and 2 ran towards the quarry. He

    further stated that he and PW4 Nagnath Salgar stayed near the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::16bicycle and where Bapu was lying in dead condition; whereas

    Barku Maske and PW2 Ramkrishna Salgar went to village




                                                    
    Waghala.22         During cross-examination, PW5 Laxman stated that he

    does not remember whether on the date of incident there was sun




                                        
    set or not, he also stated that he does not know whether there

    was cloudy sky.    He further stated that he rushed towards the
                           
    spot of incident after hearing noise from eastern direction. He also
                          
    stated that he came to know about the names of accused persons

    at the time of preparing spot panchanama. He further stated that

    he had seen the accused persons in the court for the first time
           


    and he came to know about identification of accused nos. 1 and 2
        



    in court only.23         The assessment of testimony of PW5 Laxman, which

    was put to the test of cross-examination, categorically diminishes

    his testimony, since he admitted in the cross-examination





    categorically that he came to know the names of accused persons

    for the first time while preparing spot panchanama and he saw

    the accused persons in the court for the first time, as well as he

    came to know about the identification of accused nos. 1 and 2 in

    court only. Hence, the alleged contention of PW5 Laxman that he::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::17witnessed the alleged occurrence of incident comes under the

    doldrums and thereby the prosecution case sustains fatal blow.24        Lastly, turning to the deposition of PW6 Girjappa Salgar,




                                                  
    wherein he stated that he knows accused nos. 1 and 2, who

    belong to his village and alleged incident took place on




                                         
    23.10.2004 and on the date of incident, he had been to Shirsala

    for repairing his electric motor and he returned back at about 4.30
                           
    p.m. from Shirsala to Waghala. At about 5.30 p.m. he had been
                          
    near land of Barku Maske since he was coming from Shirsala to

    his village by walk. He also stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 were

    on their bicycles from Shirsala and they overtook him. He further
           


    stated that Bapu Salgar was also going in the same direction, but
        



    accused persons were ahead of him. He further stated that he

    saw appellant no.1 Sanjay and appellant no.2 Baban and victim





    Bapu near land of Barku Maske. He also stated that appellant no.1

    Sanjay lifted big stone and throw on the head of Bapu and

    appellant no.2 Baban caught hold of legs of Bapu and due to





    assault of accused persons, Bapu Salgar sustained head injury.Thereupon, PW5 Laxman, PW2 Ramkrishna and PW4 Nagnath

    rushed to the spot of incident, but the accused persons fled away

    from the spot leaving their bicycles there.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::1825        During cross-examination, PW6 Girjappa stated that he

    cannot say day and Marathi month of occurrence of incident, but




                                                   
    he stated that alleged incident took place on the 2nd day of Holi

    festival i.e. Dhulivandan. He further stated that there was no talk




                                                  
    between him and accused nos. 1 and 2 and so also Bapu when

    they overtook him. The suggestion was given to him that he has




                                        
    not witnessed the said incident, but same was denied by him.26Thus, considering the testimony of PW6 Girjappa,
                          
    wherein he stated that accused nos. 1 and 2 herein, as well as

    victim Bapu Salgar when the accused persons over took him and

    they were ahead of victim Bapu, and considering the versions of
           


    the other eye witnesses and the version of PW6 Girjappa, there
        



    are apparent discrepancies in the theories advanced by each eye

    witnesses, and therefore, the testimony of PW6 Girjappa Salgar





    cannot be construed as the testimony of eye witness and same

    cannot be relied upon to connect the accused with the alleged

    crime.27        It is also material to note that the bicycles allegedly

    abandoned by accused nos. 1 and 2 were not seized under the

    spot panchanama and no convincing explanation has been given

    by the prosecution regarding the said lacuna, and hence, the said::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::19aspect also diminishes the credibility of the prosecution case.28         Admittedly, the postmortem notes Exh.57/C disclose

    the cause of death of victim Bapu Salgar as cardio respiratory




                                                        
    arrest due to injury to vital organ of brain, but the viscera was

    preserved, and therefore, there cannot be two opinions that




                                            
    deceased Bapu Salgar sustained homicidal death.29Having the comprehensive view of the matter and after
                              
    scrutinizing    oral   and   documentary       evidence,    adduced        and

    produced       by   the   prosecution,   and    more    particularly        the

    testimonies of afore said eye witnesses, we are of the considered
           


    view that there are discrepancies, infirmities and lacunae in the
        



    prosecution case and the testimonies of above referred eye

    witnesses are not in consonance with each other and accordingly





    there are deformities in the prosecution case, which does not

    inspire confidence to connect appellant nos. 1 and 2 with the

    alleged crime.30         In the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to

    establish the nexus between the appellants herein and the

    alleged crime by convincing legal incriminating evidence against

    them, and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::2031        In the result, the appeal is allowed and conviction and




                                                    
    sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and

    the appellants are acquitted of the offences with which they were




                                                   
    charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellants, be

    refunded to them. Since the appellants are in jail, they be




                                        
    released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)
                            ig                     (P.V.HARDAS, J.)::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:29:20 :::