GAJANAN AMRUT GAYKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-1995-9-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on September 01,1995

GAJANAN AMRUT GAYKWAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

EDULTACAO KARIDADE BRITTO VS. JOSE D SOUZA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-117] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP CONSTRUCTIONS VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2005-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT SAVANT MAJAGVAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-1997-8-4] [FOLLOWED]
JASBIR SINGH @ BEERA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-178] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-1-137] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-256] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Nanavati, J. - (1.)This appeal is filed against the judgment of the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1980. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court and convicted appellants Nos. 1 to 7 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and appellants Nos. 8 and 9 under Section 323 read with Section 149. Appellants Nos. 1 to 7 have been ordered to suffer imprisonment for life. Appellants Nos. 8 and 9 were ordered to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone.
(2.)The prosecution case was that on 8-12-1979, at about 5 a.m. appellants Nos. 1 to 7 in prosecution of their common object, assaulted Gulab with iron bar and sticks and caused his death. At that time Appellants Nos. 8 and 9 were instigating Appellants Nos. 1 to 7 to beat Gulab. Hearing the cries raised by Gulab his two brothers Madhukar (P.W. 1) and Prabhakar (P.W. 2) went to his rescue. They were also assaulted by Appellants Nos. 1 to 7, as a result of which they received injuries. By that time their cousins Dinkar and Bhaskar (P.W. 3) came out of their house and seeing the assault on Madhukar and Prabhakar they went to their rescue. They were also assaulted by Appellants Nos. 1 to 7 Dwarka and Shobha who had followed Dinkar and Bhaskar were also given sticks blows by Appellants Nos. 1 to 7 when they tried to save them. As Khanshi Ram and other persons intervened the appellants went away from that place. As a result of the injuries received, Gulab and Dinkar died. It was alleged that about two years before the date of the incident there was a quarrel between the families of Appellant No. 8 and his brother Sahib Rao (P.W. 11) on the one hand and the families of Dinkar and Gulab on the other on account of fencing of a thrashing floor and it was for that reason that all the appellants formed an unlawful assembly on the date of the incident and in prosecution of their common object assaulted Gulab.
(3.)In order to establish its case the prosecution had mainly relied upon the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses and Khanshi Ram (P.W. 6). The learned Sessions Judge found it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of eye-witnesses because of contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence and as no blood was found in front of the house of appellant No. 8 where Gulab was stated to have been assaulted first. The High Court, on careful examination of the evidence, found that what the learned Sessions Judge considered as material contradictions were really omissions as regards details of the incident. The High Court also found that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for disbelieving the eye-witnesses were neither proper nor sufficient. It, therefore, reappreciated the evidence and held that all the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and that it was in prosecution of the common object of that assembly that Gulab was beaten. The High Court also believed the evidence of the eye-witnesses that the injured eye-witnesses and Dinkar were given blows with sticks by appellants Nos. 1 to 7. As appellants Nos. 8 and 9 had merely uttered the word 'beat' and had not taken any part in the assault on the two deceased and injured witnesses the High Court convicted them under Section 323 read with Section 149 only. With respect to other appellants the High Court held that they had committed murder of Gulab and also of Dinkar and caused injuries to the injured witnesses, in prosecution of their common object and, therefore, convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149. In spite of the finding recorded by it that they had also caused injuries to the injured eye-witnesses the High Court did not convict them either under Section 307 read with Section 149 or Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.