Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Sahdev Tadokar v. State of Maharashtra - Crimin...

Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Sahdev Tadokar v. State of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal

India Bombay High Court

Filed March 24th, 2026

Detected March 25th, 2026

Summary

The Bombay High Court has issued a judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2007 and Criminal Revision Application No. 184 of 2007, concerning Sahdev S/o Shamrao Tadokar and others versus the State of Maharashtra. The judgment was pronounced on March 24, 2026, following a reservation on March 6, 2026.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has delivered its judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2007 and Criminal Revision Application No. 184 of 2007. The appeal was filed by Laxmikant S/o Sakharam Nimkarde and others, while the revision application was filed by Sahdev S/o Shamrao Tadokar, both against the State of Maharashtra and other parties. The judgment addresses the conviction and sentence passed in Session Trial No.12/2002 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur.

This ruling represents a final decision on the appeals and revisions, impacting the legal standing and potential sentences of the involved parties. Compliance officers should note this as a significant judicial outcome in a criminal matter, potentially setting precedents or confirming existing legal interpretations within the jurisdiction. No specific compliance actions are mandated for external entities, but legal departments should be aware of the case's resolution.

Source document (simplified)

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 51, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Sahdev S/O Shamrao Tadokar vs The State Of Mah. Thru P.S.O. And 7 Ors. on 24 March, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:4698

                                          1          APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2007

                1. Laxmikant S/o Sakharam Nimkarde,
                   Aged about 55 years,

                2. Amar @ Amardip S/o Laxmikant
                   Nimkarde,
                   Aged about 27 years,

                3. Adesh @ Naresh S/o          Laxmikant
                   Nimkarde,
                   Aged about 22 years,

                4. Subhash S/o Sahadeo Tadokar,
                   Aged about 32 years,

                5. Mahadeo S/o Sahdeo Tadokar,
                   Aged about 32 years,

                6. Prakash S/o Gulabrao Tadokar,
                   Aged about 26 years,

                7. Sadananad S/o Gulabrao Tadokar,
                   Aged about 35 years,

                8. Sahadeo S/o Shamrao Tadokar,
                   Aged about 65 years,
                   All Agriculturists by Occupation and
                   all R/o Rampura Kokarda, Tahsil-
                   Anjangaon Surji, District- Amravati. APPELLANTS

                     Versus
                   The State of Maharashtra,
                        2          APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Khallar, District- Amravati. RESPONDENT

                     WITH

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2007

Sahdev S/o Shamrao Tadokar,
Aged about 69 years,
Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o Rampura, Police Station Khallar,
District- Amravati. APPLICANT

 Versus

The State of Maharashtra,
Thr. Police Station Officer, Police
Station Khallar, District- Amravati.
Sahebrao S/o Trimbakrao Bobde,
Aged about 54 years,
Amol S/o Sahebrao Bobde,
Aged about 20 years,
Rahul S/o Sahebrao Bobde,
Aged about 19 years,
Vinod S/o Narayanrao Bobde,
Aged about 31 years,
Sanjay S/o Narayanrao Bobde,
Aged about 24 years,
Subhash S/o Sheshrao Bobde,
Aged about 31 years,
3 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Chandrashekhar S/o Sheshrao Bobde, Aged about 29 years, All 2 to 8 R/o Rampura Post- Kokarda, Tq- Anjangaon, (Surji) District - Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS

APPEAL NO. 171/2007
Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the Respondent/State.
REVN NO. 184/2007
Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Advocate, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. Ankit Ambatkar, Advocate for the Non-applicant Nos. 2 to 6.

Mr. B.H. Tekam, Advocate for the Non-applicant Nos. 7 & 8.

     CORAM                   : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.

      RESERVED ON            :    06th MARCH, 2026.
      PRONOUNCED ON :             24th MARCH, 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and

order of sentence passed in Session Trial No.12/2002 dated

14.05.2007 by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur by

which the Appellants/accused are convicted of the offence

punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six

months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer
4 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

simple imprisonment for one month. The Appellants are further

convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and of the

offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act

and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months

and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for one month.

The original complainant in cross complaint

challenges the order of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial

No. 100/2006.

Brief facts of the prosecution case emerges from the

Police papers and recorded evidence are as under:

3(i). The accused and the informant as well as

prosecution witnesses are residing of the same Village

Anjangaon Surji. There is a political rivalry and old enmity

between the two groups. The prosecution witnesses belongs to

one group, whereas the accused persons are from another

group. Injured Subhash Bobde has lodged the FIR alleging that
5 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

on 05.06.2001 at about 6.30 to 07.00 a.m., all the accused

persons formed an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of

common object of the said assembly came in front of the house

of PW-3/Vinod Bobde by holding weapons like sword, spear,

axes and sticks in their hands. The accused No.1 Laxmikant and

accused No. 3/Adesh assaulted PW-3/Vinod. The accused No.1

Laxmikant was holding sword, gave a blow of sword on the

head of Vinod, whereas accused No.3/Adesh gave a blow of

handle of spear on the person of Vinod. When the other

prosecution witnesses namely Chandrashekhar Bobde, Sahebrao

Bobde, Ashok Bobde and Sanjay Bobde intervened to rescue

Vinod, accused persons assaulted them also by means of

weapons in their hands. In the said incident Rahul Bobde, Amol

Bobde, Subhash Bobde, Sanjay Bobde, Vinod Bobde, Ashok

Bobde, Rahul Sahebrao Bobde and Chandrashekhar Bobde

received grievous injuries on the vital parts of their body. It was

alleged that, accused persons in furtherance of their common

object assaulted the prosecution witnesses and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

3(ii). After registration of the crime the Investigating
6 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Officer carried out the further investigation and visited the spot

of incident and drawn the spot panchanama. He further seized

the clothes of the injured persons, arrested the accused persons

on the basis of the statement of accused No.1 Laxmikant and

accused No. 3/Adesh recovered the sword Article A and spear

Article- D from them. The other weapons are recovered from the

accused persons seized the weapons and the blood stained

clothes are forwarded to CA. On completion of the investigation

the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons.
3(iii). As the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC

is tried by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions

Judge, Achalpur framed the Charge vide Exh. 51. The contents

of the charge are read over and explained to the accused

persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

3(iv). In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution

has examined in all 18 witnesses, as follows:

(i) PW-1 Subhash Sheshrao Exh.144 Informant
Bobade
7 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

(ii) PW-2 Sanjay Narayanrao Exh.147 Injured
Bobade

(iii) PW-3 Vinod Narayanrao Exh.148 Injured
Bobade

(iv) PW-4 Ashok Trimbakrao Exh.150 Injured
Bobade

(v) PW-5 Shrikrishna Exh.153 Eye witness
Narayanrao Khiralkar

(vi) PW-6 Rahul Sahebrao Exh.154 Injured
Bobade

(vii) PW-7 Sahebrao Trimbakrao Exh.157 Injured
Bobade

(viii) PW-8 Purushottam Ramraoji Exh.158 Panch on
Vairale seizure of
weapons

(ix) PW-9 Chandrashekhar Exh.168 Injured
Sheshrao Bobade

(x) PW-10 Rajesh Pralhadrao Exh.169 Panch on
Zagade seizure

(xi) PW-11 Dr. Manoj Bhagwanji Exh.173 Medical Officer
Nichat

(xii) PW-12 Dr. Abhijit Vasantrao Exh.178 Medical Officer
Tale

(xiii) PW-13 Sanjay Sahadeorao Exh.181 Police
Udapure Constable

(xiv) PW-14 Vitthal Parashramji Exh.183 Police
Sarode Constable

(xv) PW-15 Arvind Govindrao Exh.185 Panch on
Mohod memorandum
statement and
recovery
8 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

panchanama

(xvi) PW-16 Sanjay Bhikaji Pande Exh.186 Investigating
Officer

(xvii) PW-17 Bhujangrao Karutji Exh.198 Panch on
Dahat memorandum
statement and
recovery
panchanama

(xviii) PW-18 Dr. Sivalaruselval Exh.201 Medical Officer
Sundaramoorthy

3(v). Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed

reliance on Report-Exh. 145, FIR-Exh. 146, Seizure memo-
Exh. 149, Seizure memos-Exhs. 159 to 167, Seizure memo-

Exh. 170, Medical Certificates of the injured-Exhs. 174 to 177,

Medical Certificate of Sanjay Narayan Bobade-Exh. 179, Injury

Certificate of Sahebrao Trimbakrao Bobade-Exh. 180, Spot

Panchnama-Exh. 187, Memorandum statement of accused

No.1/Laxmikant Sakharam Nimkarde-Exh. 188, Memorandum

statement of accused No.3/Adesh Laxmikant Nimkarde-

Exh. 189, Recovery panchnamas-Exhs. 190 and 191, Requisition

to CA-Exh.192, CA Report-Exh. 193, Notification under [Section

37(1)(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105038989/) of the Bombay Police Act-Exh. 194, Medical Certificate

of Chandrashekhar Bobade-Exh. 202.

9 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

3(vi). All incriminating evidence is put to the accused in

order to obtain their explanations. The defence of the accused

persons is that there was a free fight between the two groups,

wherein the accused persons as well as the prosecution

witnesses sustained the injuries. The cross compliant is filed

against the prosecution witnesses also as they have assaulted

the accused persons.

3(vii). After appreciating the evidence on record and on

going through the entire evidence, the learned Adhoc

Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur held the present accused

persons guilty and convicted as aforestated.

3(viii). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the

present Appeal is preferred by the Appellants/accused on the

ground that the injuries of the accused persons are not

explained by the prosecution. The entire genesis of the incident

is suppressed by the prosecution. The cross complaint which

was tried alongwith the present Sessions Case is bearing

Sessions Trial No. 100/2006, wherein the accused persons who

are the prosecution witnesses in the present case are acquitted

though some of the accused have received the grievous injuries.

10 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

The evidence of prosecution witnesses suffers from

inconsistency and not inspiring the confidence. During the

pendency of Appeal some of the accused i.e. Sahebrao

Trimbakrao Bobde, Rahul Sahebrao Bobde, Vinod Narayanrao

Bodbe and Sanjay Narayanrao Bobde entered into the

settlement. In view of the said settlement, the conviction and

sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Heard Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Accused

persons, who submitted that during the pendency of this Appeal

some of the accused and the prosecution witnesses entered into

the settlement. In view of the settlement, the conviction and

sentence of the accused persons deserves to be quashed and set

aside. As to the merits of the case, he submitted that,

prosecution has not adduced the evidence to show that, all the

accused persons were members of the unlawful assembly and in

pursuance of the common object of the said assembly, they

assaulted the injured persons. He further submitted that, no

specific role is attributed to each of the accused, as the injuries

of the accused are not explained, which is fatal to the

prosecution and sufficient to show that, the genesis of the
11 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

incident is suppressed. The evidence adduced by the

prosecution witnesses is suffering from the omissions and

contradictions which are vital in nature and affects the

prosecution case. Section 149 of IPC cannot be invoked as the

fight between the two groups was free fight. Alternatively, he

submitted that, considering the nature of the incident, benefit of

extending the Probation of the Offenders Act be given to the

present accused persons and prays for acquittal of the accused.

Per contra, learned APP supported the judgment of

the learned Trial Court and submitted that, the evidence

adduced by the prosecution is consistent. The prosecution has

adduced the evidence explaining the role of each of the accused,

which is not shattered during the cross-examination. The oral

evidence is further corroborated by the medical evidence. The

prosecution evidence further shows that, the accused persons

were aggressors came in front of the house of PW-3/Vinod and

initiated the incident. The role of the accused No.1/Laxmikant

and accused No.3/Adesh is specifically stated by all the

prosecution witnesses, which sufficiently shows the involvement

of the present accused persons in the alleged crime. Considering
12 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

the nature of the incident merely because there was

compromise between some of the accused and prosecution

witnesses not sufficient to quash the conviction as the offence

alleged is grievous one. It would not be open to the present

Court as to acquit the accused on the basis of the settlement.

Moreover, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is supported by

the medical evidence and scientific evidence. In view of that,

the Appeal being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Mr. Tekam, learned Counsel submitted that, the

learned Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused persons

of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with [Section

149](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/999134/) of IPC and sentenced them as aforestated. However, the

learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence

and failed to appreciate that the present prosecution witnesses

have formed the unlawful assembly and caused the injuries to

the accused persons. No specific finding was recorded regarding

who initiated the incident. The Court wrongly discredited the

FIR for not specifying the exact weapon used by each accused

contrary to the settled law. The Trial Court failed to appreciate

that, the accused persons in cross complaint formed the
13 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

unlawful assembly and caused the injuries to the witnesses and

wrongly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused

persons in Sessions Trial No. 100/2006.

In support of the contentions, Mr. Agrawal, learned

Counsel placed reliance on [Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of

Bihar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/807023/), (1976) 4 SCC 394; Kalyan & Ors., Vs. State of U.P.,

(2001) 9 SCC 632; State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (Dead) & Ors.,

(2003) 9 SCC 426; Bir Singh & Ors., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

(1977) 4 SCC 420; State of Haryana Vs. Chandvir & Ors.,

1996(8) SCC 678; Angad & Ors., Vs. The State of Maharashtra,

2026 NCBHC-AUG 92; Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2025

SCC Online SC 50.

Mr. Tekam, learned Counsel placed reliance on Gajanand & Ors., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C.

695; Lalji & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 754; [Pal Singh

Vs. Sunder Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/870347/) (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 758; [State

of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Charan & Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75507629/), AIR 2013 SC 2342; [Karan

Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113479948/), AIR 2013 SC 2348; [State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanha Alias Omprakash](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114636265/), (2019) 3 SCC

605; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors.,
14 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

(2019) 5 SCC 688; [State of M.P. Vs. Saleem Alias Chamaru &

Anr.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440197/), (2005) 5 SCC 554; [Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors.

Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1038846/), (2003) 6 SCC 175; Criminal Revision

Application No. 130/2016, [Suman Shankar Patinge & Anr. Vs.

State of Maharashtra](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80766311/), decided on 15.06.2023; Criminal Appeal

No. 381/2019, [Rohit Vijay Onkar & Ors. Vs. State of

Maharashtra](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1381793/), decided on 13.10.2025.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the

entire evidence, it has to be seen whether the prosecution is

succeeded in establishing the charge against the present accused

persons to prove that the accused Nos.1 to 8 were the members

of the unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the common

object of that assembly, assaulted the prosecution witnesses and

thereby committed and offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 135 of

Bombay Police Act.

To prove that the accused persons were the

members of the unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the

common object they have assaulted the prosecution witnesses,

prosecution mainly relied upon on the evidence of
15 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

PW-1/Subhash Bobade examined vide Exh. 144, PW-2/Sanjay

Bobade examined vide Exh. 147, PW-3 Vinod Bobade examined

vide Exh. 148, PW-4/Ashok Bobade examined vide Exh. 150,

PW-5/Shrikrishna Khiralkar examined vide Exh. 153,

PW-6/Rahul Bobade examined vide Exh. 154, PW-7/ Sahebrao

Bobade examined vide Exh. 157 and PW-9/Chandrashekhar

Bobade examined vide Exh. 168.

The evidence of PW-1/Subhash Bobade shows that,

the alleged incident took place on 05.06.2001 at about 06.30 to

07.00 a.m. The incident occurred in front of the house of Vinod

Bobade who is PW-3. As per his evidence at that time he was

working on Tractor in front of the house of Vinod Bobade, all

the accused persons namely Laxmikant, Adesh, Amar, deceased

accused Mahadeo, accused No.11/Sahadeo, accused No.

4/Subhash, accused No.5/Mahadeo, accused No.6 Prakash,

accused No.7/Sadanand, deceased accused Vitthal and deceased

accused Gulabrao came there holding weapons in their hands.

His evidence further shows that, accused No.1

Laxmikant was holding sword, accused no. 2/Amar was holding

stick, accused No.3/Adesh was holding spear, accused No.
16 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

4/Subhash was holding axe, deceased accused Mahdeo holding

spear, accused No. 6/Prakash, accused No. 7/Sadanand and

accused No.8 Vitthal were holding sticks in their hands. He

further stated that, accused No. 1/Laxmikant and accused No.

3/Adesh started assaulting Vinod Bobade, accused

No.1/Laxmikant gave a blow of sword on the head of Vinod

Bobade, whereas accused No.3/Adesh gave a blow of handle of

spear on the person of Vinod Bobade. PW-9/Chandrashekhar

intervened. He was assaulted by deceased accused Mahadeo by

inflicting blow of a spear near the ear of Chandrashekhar.

Accused No.2/Amar also assaulted Chandkrashekhar with

sticks. The other prosecution witnesses Ashok, Sahebrao and

Sanjay came there to intervene and all the accused persons

assaulted Ashok, Sahebrao and Sanjay. The prosecution

witnesses Rahul Bobade and Amol Bobade also received the

injuries due to the blow of sword. PW-1/Subhash also went to

rescue them. He was also assaulted by accused No. 1/Laxmikant

by means of sword above his left eye. PW-1/Subhash also

received the injuries. Accused No.3/Adesh also assaulted him by

stick of spear. The villagers came there and separated the

accused persons. Thereafter accused left the spot. Injured Vinod
17 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

and Ashok sustained the bleeding injury. The clothes of all the

injured were stained with blood. All the injured were taken to

the Police out post Khallar Police Station. Thereafter they were

taken to the Government Hospital. He lodged the report Exh.

145 and FIR Exh. 146.

The evidence of PW-2/Sanjay Bobade also on the

similar line that, accused No.1/Laxmikant was holding sword,

accused No.3/Adesh was holding spear and all other accused

persons were holding sticks and axes. Accused Nos. 1 and 3

were beating Vinod and Ashok. When PW-2/Sanjay intervened

accused No.8 Sahadeorao attempted to assault him. Accused

No.1/Laxmikant also made an attempt to assault him by sword

and while resisting the act he sustained the injury on his palm.

Accused No.5 Mahadeo (deceased) gave a blow of stick, due to

which he sustained the head injury.

PW-3/Vinod Bobade also attributed the role to the

accused No.1/Laxmikant for giving a blow of sword. As per his

evidence one of the accused gave a blow of axe on his head. His

clothes were stained with blood i.e. Art. 'F' is Baniyan and Art.

'G' is Paijama stained with blood was seized.

18 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

The evidence of PW-4/Ashok Bobade also shows

that, accused No.1/Laxmikant assaulted him by sword and

accused No.3/Adesh by stick and accused Sahadeo beat his

brother Sahebrao. He has sustained the injuries on right little

finger, above right eye and on left side of head. His blood

stained clothes i.e. Art.'H' Paijama and Art. 'I' Baniyan are

seized by the Police.

PW-7/Sahebrao Bobade and PW-9/Chandrashekhar

Bobade also stated that the spot of incident was in front of the

house of Vinod Bobde. Accused No.1/Laxmikant was holding

sword, accused No. 3/Adesh was holding spear having wooden

handle, accused No.2/Amar, accused No. 5/Mahadeo, accused

No.6/Prakash and accused No.7/Sadanand were holding sticks,

whereas accused No.8/Sahadeo and accused No. 4/Subhash

were holding axe. As per his evidence accused No.1/Laxmikant

gave a blow of sword on Ashok on his head.

The evidence of PW-9/Chandrashekhar is also on

the similar line stating that, accused No.1/Laxmikant gave a

blow of sword, accused No. 3/Adesh by spear and accused No.

2/Amar also by spear.

19 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

The evidence of these witnesses is further

corroborated by PW-5/Shrikrishna Khiralkar who is an

independent witness also testified that, Sahebrao Bobde was

caught and accused No.1/Laxmikant, accused No.3/Adesh were

beating Ashok with sword and stick of the spear. The sword is in

the hand of Laxmikant, whereas the stick of the spear was used

by Adesh to assault Ashok. Accused No.1/Laxmikant gave a

blow on the head of Ashok and accused No. 3/Adesh gave a

blow of stick of spear on the back of Ashok. Accused Nos. 1 and

3 also beat Sahebrao who was also caught by Sahadeorao. He

lifted the injured Ashok and Sahebrao, hence his clothes were

stained with blood.

All these witnesses were cross-examined at length.

As far as the cross-examination is concerned, the spot of

incident is in front of the house of Vinod Bobade, is not denied

or shattered during the cross-examination. It was brought on

record that, there was previous enmity between the two

families. There are other houses near the spot of incident.

During cross-examination, the material omissions are brought

on record that, PW-1/Subhash has not narrated before the
20 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Investigating Officer while lodging the FIR that each accused

was armed with which weapon. He has also not stated

specifically that accused No.1/Laxmikant gave a blow of sword

on the head of Vinod and accused No.3/Adesh gave a blow of

stick of spear on the person of Vinod. Thus, it was brought on

record that, the role of each of the accused was not narrated by

PW-1/Subhash while lodging the FIR which are the proved

omissions.

Evidence of PW-2/Sanjay i.e. the cross-examination

shows that, the cross complaint was filed against him also which

was admitted by him. Attempt was made to show that, though

he stated that his left hand's finger was cut but he admitted that

he is having 10 fingers to both the hands. Similarly, PW-3/Vinod

also admitted that, he is not aware whether the accused persons

have also sustained the injuries on the day of incident and

admits that, on the basis of the report of accused Sahadeo he

was facing prosecution under Section 324 of IPC. His

cross-examination shows that, firstly accused No.1/Laxmikant

came on the spot then accused No. 3/Adesh and thereafter they

were followed by the other accused.

21 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

PW-4/Ashok stated during the cross-examination

that, there are several houses near to his house. Mahadeo

Bobade filed Civil suit against Shrikrishna Khiralkar i.e. PW-5.

He has given the evidence in the suit in favour of Khiralkar. This

cross-examination was taken to show that PW-5/ Shrikrishna

Khiralkar is the interested witness.

PW-5/Shrikrishna also stated during his

cross-examination that, Maramari took place between the two

parties. He stated before the Police that, on hearing the

commotion he went there. But he denied that no incident of

beating has taken place in his presence. He further denied that,

it was the prosecution witnesses who assaulted the accused

persons, and therefore, the accused persons sustained the

injuries. On recording his statement belatedly, it is brought on

record that on 4/5 days, the Police were visiting the Village but

he has not gone to the Police and asked to record his statement.

He denied that his statement was recorded after 10 days.

PW-6/Rahul's evidence is also on the similar line as

to the assault by the accused persons and except the admission

that cross complaint is filed against them, nothing incriminating
22 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

is brought on record.

Evidence of PW-7/Sahebrao during cross-

examination shows that, he was Police Patil, but he denied that,

the case was filed against him to remove him from the post of

Police Patil. On the contrary, his cross-examination shows that

proceeding APT-5/Rampura-2006 was pending before the

S.D.O. for removing from the post of Police Patil. He also admits

that, the cross complaint is filed against him.

PW-9/Chandrashekhar also cross-examined but

nothing incriminating is brought on record to falsify his version.

Thus, the evidence of all these witnesses is consistent as far as

the role of accused No.1/Laxmikant, accused No. 3/Adesh and

accused No. 2/Amar are concerned. Though PW-1/Subhash has

admitted that he has not stated specific role of each of the

accused but other witnesses have specifically stated the role of

each of the accused and their evidence are not shattered during

the cross-examination. The evidence of all these witnesses also

shows that, the alleged spot of incident is in front of the house

of PW-3/Vinod Bobade. Admittedly, the cross-examination of

these witnesses nowhere disclose that there was any other spot
23 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

of incident. It further reveals from his cross-examination that,

regarding the said incident cross complaint was filed against the

prosecution witnesses bearing Sessions Trial No. 100/2006,

which was also conducted before the same Court. Thus, the

presence of the accused persons at the spot is established not

only by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but also by

the fact that regarding the same incident one of the accused

Sahadeo filed complaint against the prosecution witnesses. The

trial was conducted against the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the

spot of incident which is in front of the house of PW-3/Vinod

Bobade is established by the prosecution witnesses and the said

evidence is not shattered, which sufficiently shows that the

accused persons were aggressors came in front of the house of

PW-3/Vinod and the alleged incident has occurred.

To corroborate the version of the prosecution

witnesses, the prosecution further relied upon on the medical

evidence PW-11/Dr. Manoj Nichat is examined vide Exh.173

who has examined injured Ashok Bobade, Vinod Bobade, Rahul

Bobade, Subhash Bobade.

On examination of Ashok Bobade, he found 24 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

following injuries on his person.

incised wound 5 x 2 cm. just above the right
eye it was caused by sharp object, probable age was,
6 hours,
incised wound 8 cm. x 1 cm. over the occipital
region,
abrasion 12 cm x 1/2 cm. on left anterior axillary
line inverticle,
incised wound 4 cm. x 1 cm. on right little finger
contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. over left infra scapular
region,
contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. over the abdomen right
lumber region.

Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of Ashok Bobade were

caused by sharp object. Injury No.3 was caused by pointed

object and injury Nos. 5 and 6 were caused by hard and blunt

object. The age of the injuries was within six hours. The injury

Nos. 1 and 2 were on head. Accordingly, he issued the certificate

Exh. 174. He opined that, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 4 can be caused

by sword and injury No.3 can be caused by spear and injury

Nos. 5 and 6 can be caused by stick.

25 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

On examination of injured Vinod Bobade, he found

following injuries.

contused lacerated 8 cm. x 1 cm. on left frontal
and parietal region, 3 cm. lateral to mid line
contused lacerated 4 cm. x 1 cm. over the frontal
region near midline
contused lacerated 3 cm. x 1 cm. over behind left ear
contusion with querry fracture over metacarpal bone 4
cm. x 2 cm. right palm.

All the above injuries caused on the person of Vinod

Bobade by hard and blunt object within six hours. Injury Nos. 1

and 2 were on head. Accordingly, he issued certificate Exh. 175.

On examination of Rahul Bobade, he found

following injuries.

Incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. over left infraclavicular
region
incised wound 1 cm. x 1 cm. over the left inframmary
area
contusion 5 cm. x 2 cm. on right scapular area
26 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
```
    Injury Nos. 1 and 2 caused by sharp object and
```

injury No.3 was caused by hard and blunt object. Accordingly,

he prepared certificate Exh. 176. As per his evidence injury

Nos. 1 and 2 can be caused by spear, whereas injury No. 3 can

be caused by stick.

He examined Subhash Bobade. On examination, he

found following injuries.

incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. on distal phalynx right
index finger
contused lacerated 2 cm. x 1 cm. on left eye brow

contusion 6 cm. x 2 cm. on left forearm

    Injury No. 1 caused by sharp object and injury

Nos. 2 and 3 caused by hard and blunt object within six hours.

Accordingly, he issued certificate Exh. 177.

The evidence of PW-11/Medical Officer further

shows that, injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of injured Ashok

were on head i.e. on vital part of the body. Injury nos. 1 and 2

sustained by the injured Ashok were sufficient to cause death in

the ordinary course of nature. So also injuries sustained by
27 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

injured Vinod were on head i.e. on vital part of the body, were

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The cross-examination shows that, witness has

denied that all contusions and abrasions are simple injuries. He

explained that, if the contusions and abrasions are on non-vital

part of the body are simple injuries. He further admits that,

incised wound can be caused during scuffle between 5-6

persons on one and side and five six persons on the other side.

He further admits, that merely because the injuries are on vital

part, it cannot be said that it is sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. Thus, the attempt was made to show

that, merely because injuries are sustained on vital part of the

body is not sufficient to infer that, the said injuries are sufficient

to cause death of the injured.

PW-12/Dr. Abhijit Tale is the another Medical

Officer, who has examined Sanjay Bobade and found following

injuries on his person.

lacerated wound 10 cm. x 1 cm. on left hand palm,
anteriorly
28 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt
incised wound 3 x 1 cm. on parietal area on head.

Injury No.1 can be caused by hard and sharp object,

whereas injury No. 2 can be caused by sharp object. The injuries

were within six hours. Accordingly, he issued the certificate

Exh. 179.

He has also examined Sahebrao Bobade. On his

person following injuries are found.

incised wound 8 cm. x 1 cm. on left temporal area on
head
incised wound 7 x 1 cm. on right temporal area of
head.

lacerated wound ½ x 1 x 4 cm. on left hard middle
finger

       He issued the certificate Exh. 180. As per his

evidence, injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of Sahebrao can be

caused by sharp object and injury No.3 can be caused by hard

and sharp object.

His cross-examination shows that, only because

injuries on head is not sufficient to say that it would be

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He
29 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

further admits that, during scuffle also such type of injuries are

possible.

PW-18 is the another Medical Officer

Dr. Sivalaruselval Sundaramoorthy who has examined injured

Chandrashekhar Bobade, on whose person he has found

following injuries.

1) lacerated wound of 2.5 to 5 cm. size over the left ear,
upper part

2) a contusion of 1 x 1 cm. size over right knee

3) Abrasion / contusion of 1.5 x 1 cm. size over left knee

4) An abrasion of 1 x 3 cm. over posterio lateral aspect
below left elbow

5) Abrasion of 4 x 2 cm. in posterio lateral aspect of right
elbow

6) Abrasion / contusion of 12 x 5 cm. over upper part of
right side of back

        Injury No.1 was by sharp object and other injuries

were by blunt object. Accordingly, he issued the certificate

Exh. 202. He also admits that, injury No.1 referred to in

Exh. 202 may be possible during the scuffle of two groups.

30 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

        Thus, during the evidence of Medical Officer,

attempt was made to bring on record that such type of injuries

are possible during the scuffle between the two groups.

Besides the oral evidence of these witnesses,

evidence of PW-8/Purushottam Vairale is adduced to prove the

seizure of the weapons at the instance of the accused, who has

not supported the prosecution case. Though witness has turned

hostile, the panchnamas are shown to be proved during his

evidence, which is not correct. PW-10/Rajesh Zagade is

examined vide Exh. 169, in whose presence the blood stained

clothes of Ashok and Vinod were seized by drawing panchnama

Exh.170. He narrated that, in his presence the said panchnama

was drawn. During his cross-examination nothing incriminating

is brought on record. PW-15/Arvind Mohod and

PW-17/Bhujangrao Dahat who acted as a Panch on the

memorandum statement of accused No.1/Laxmikant and

accused No.3/Adesh, but both these witnesses have left loyalty

towards prosecution and not supported the prosecution case.

PW-13/Sanjay Udapure and PW-14/Vitthal Sarode

are the Police Constables who are the formal witnesses. PW-13/
31 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Sanjay Udapure registered the FIR, whereas PW-14/Vitthal

Sarode registered the crime. PW-16/Sanjay Pande is the

Investigating Officer, who has narrated about the investigation.

His evidence discloses that, at the instance of the accused

Prakash, accused Mahadeo, accused Sadanand, he has seized

the sticks. At the instance of accused Vitthal and Mahadeo he

seized axe. From accused Subhash he has seized axe.

Accordingly, the panchnamas are drawn. On 20.06.2001

accused No.1/Laxmikant and accused No.3/Adesh made a

memorandum statement and shown their willingness to show

the place where the weapons are kept. Accordingly, their

memorandum statements Exhs. 188 and 189 were recorded. At

their instance, accused No.1/Laxmikant laid them in a cattle

shed and took out the sword concealed in heap of fodder, which

was seized by drawing panchnama Exh. 190 and accused

No.3/Adesh also shown the place cattle shed i.e. heap of fodder

and produce the spear in presence of panchas. Accordingly,

panchnama Exh. 191 was drawn.

His cross-examination shows that, he denied that he

interrogated accused Nos. 1 and 3 at the same time. It was
32 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

contended by the learned defence Counsel that, the time of

beginning and its completion are recorded at Exhs. 188 and 189

is having a distance of 15 km from Police Station. The place of

seizure is 30 minutes away from the Police Station and

therefore, the seizure panchnama is not believable. During his

cross-examination, the omissions which are brought on record

in the evidence of PW-1/Subhash are proved. There is no denial

as to the memorandum statement of the accused and the

recovery at the instance of the accused.

The judgment of the Trial Court is commented upon

by the learned Counsel for the accused on the ground that, the

genesis of the incident is suppressed by the prosecution as the

injuries on the person of the accused are not explained. It is an

admitted position that, the cross complaint was registered

against the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, the record of the

cross complaint shows that, accused Mahadev Udebhanji,

accused Mahadeo Sahadeorao, accused Sahadeorao and

Subhash Sahadeorao sustained the injuries in the said incident.

The injury sustained by Mahadev Udebhanji is the abrasion

contusion over the back of left shoulder 4 x 1 c.m., simple in
33 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

nature. The accused Mahadev Sahadeorao sustained the injury a

lacerated wound of 2cm. X 0.3 c.m. The noting on medical

certificate shows that, he was referred for the X-ray to ascertain

the fracture but no further evidence is adduced that he

sustained the fracture injury. Similarly, Sahadevrao also referred

to ascertain whether he has sustained the fracture to skull.

There is no further evidence to show that he has sustained the

grievous injury. Similarly, Subhash sustained the lacerated

wound and suspected the dislocation of the left shoulder and

referred to X-ray but no further evidence that he sustained the

fracture or dislocation of left shoulder. The injuries of Amarjit

Nimkarde was also referred for X-ray of right tibia but there is

no evidence that he has also sustained the grievous injuries.

The law is settled that, where the prosecution fails

to explain the injuries on the accused two results follow (i) that

the evidence of prosecution witnesses is untrue and (ii) that the

injuries probabilise the plea taken by the Appellants.

In the case of [Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai Vs. State

of Bihar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1935279/), MANU/SC/0057/1968 and Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Vs.

State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0136/1976, wherein it is observed
34 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

that:

"In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by the accused at about the time of the
occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very
important circumstance from which the Court can draw
the following inferences:

(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and
the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the
true version;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the
injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most
material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in cases there is a defence version which explains
the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much
greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives
a version which completes in probability completes with
that of the prosecution one."
41. It has been further made clear that, failure of the

prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries

found on the accused may show that the evidence related to the

incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Likewise, in

the case of Lakshmi Singh (supra) relied upon by Mr. Agrawal,

learned Counsel for the accused, it is observed that

non-explanation of the injuries on the accused by the

prosecution may affect the prosecution case and such

non-explanation may assume greater importance where the

defence gives a version which competes in probability with that
35 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

of the prosecution. These aspects further highlighted by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijayee Singh Vs. State of

U.P., MANU/SC 0284/1990, that if the prosecution evidence is

clear, cogent and creditworthy and the Court can distinguish the

truth from the falsehood the mere fact that the injuries are not

explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to

reject such evidence and consequently the whole case and much

depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Thus, the law is settled that the non-explanation of

the injuries by the prosecution will not affect the prosecution's

case where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and

superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so

independent and disinterested, probable, consistent and

creditworthy, it would not affect the omission on the part of the

prosecution to explain the injuries.

In the case of Ramlagan Singh Vs. State of Bihar,

MANU/SC/0216/1972, it is observed that, prosecution is not

called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the

accused persons. It is for the defence to put the questions to the

prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused
36 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the

prosecution witnesses to explain any injury on the person of the

accused.

In Hare Krishna Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar,

MANU/SC/0181/1988, it was observed that, the obligation of

the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused

in the same occurrence may not arise in each and every case. In

other words, it is not an invariable rule that the prosecution has

to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same

occurrence.

Here in the present case, the evidence on record of

the injured witnesses shows that, there was a previous enmity

between the accused and the prosecution witnesses.

PW-5/Shrikrishna Khiralkar is the independent eyewitness of

the said incident. Despite their cross-examination the evidence

is not shattered to show that it was the prosecution witnesses

who were involved in the assault. On the contrary, the evidence

shows that, it was the accused persons who were aggressors

came in front of house of PW-3/Vinod Bobade and the incident

was initiated as they have started assaulting Vinod Bobade.

37 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Other prosecution witnesses intervened and they were also

assaulted by the present accused persons.

Thus, the evidence sufficiently shows that, it was the

accused persons who are the aggressors raised the quarrel with

the prosecution witnesses and caused them grievous injuries. It

is settled law that, if there are serious injuries or grievous

injuries found on the body of the accused then the prosecution

owes the duty to explain such injuries and the failure on the

part of the prosecution to explain may point towards the

innocence of the accused. At the same time, the well settled law

is that, if the injuries are superficial and minor in nature then

the prosecution need not explain such injuries. Here in the

present case, admittedly, the accused has not offered any

explanation to show that they have sustained the injuries at the

hands of the prosecution witnesses, which are grievous in

nature. Their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,

wherein also they have not explained that, they have sustained

the grievous injuries. The medical certificates in the cross

complaint though shows that, they have sustained the injuries

but there is no evidence on record to show that they have
38 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

sustained the grievous injuries. Therefore, the prosecution is not

under the obligation to explain the said injuries in the light of

the evidence adduced by the prosecution which is clear, cogent

and creditworthy, on the basis of which, it can be distinguish

what is the truth. A mere fact that, injuries are not explained by

the prosecution, is not sufficient to reject the prosecution's case.

On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that, it was the

accused persons who were aggressors as the incident has

occurred in front of the house of one of the injured.

Another ground raised by the learned Counsel for

the accused, is that it was a free fight between the accused

persons and the prosecution witnesses and in the said free fight

accused as well as the prosecution witnesses has sustained the

injuries. The testimony of the witnesses relied upon by the

prosecution would indicate that, the incident occurred as the

accused persons came in front of the house of injured Vinod and

thereafter the incident starts. Thus, the accused were the

aggressors as they went armed with weapons in front of the

house of injured Vinod and assaulted the prosecution witnesses.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, it was the accused
39 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

persons who with a preparation went at the spot of incident and

the alleged incident has occurred. By no stretch of imagination

it can be said that, it is a free fight.

Though Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the

Appellants, placed reliance on the decision of [State of Haryana

Vs. Chandvir](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/858951/) and Angad & Ors., Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra). The facts of the cited case shows that, in both the cases

it was the prosecution witnesses who were aggressors went at

the spot of incident with preparation, but in the present case,

the accused persons are the aggressors and the incident was

initiated by the accused persons, and therefore, the observation

in both these cases is not helpful to the accused persons.

As per the prosecution case, the accused persons

were the members of unlawful assembly and in furtherance of

common object of that assembly they entered into the courtyard

of the house of Vinod Bobade alongwith the weapons in their

hands and started assaulting the injured Vinod Bobade. At the

relevant time, the other prosecution witnesses intervened and

they have also sustained the injuries. It is submitted by the

learned Counsel for the accused persons that, no specific role is
40 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

attributed to each of the accused. During the evidence of PW-1/

Subhash some omissions are brought on record to show that, he

has not stated while lodging the FIR as to which accused was

holding which weapon. Admittedly, PW-1/Subhash has not

stated but his evidence is to the extent that all the accused

persons entered into the courtyard of the house of the injured

Vinod Bobade by holding weapons in their hands and caused

the injuries to all prosecution witnesses.

At this juncture, the relevant legal provision 141 of IPC which defines unlawful assembly. It says an assembly of 5 or

more persons as designated as unlawful assembly if the

common object of the persons composing that assembly is to

commit an illegal act by means of criminal force.

As per Section 148 of IPC which deals with rioting

armed with deadly weapons, whoever guilty of rioting, being

armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which used as

weapons of offence is likely to cause death, shall be punished

with imprisonment either description for a term which may

extend to three years or with fine or with both. The offence of

riot is defined in Section 146 of IPC. In view of the said
41 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

definition, whenever force or violence is used by the unlawful

assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the

common object of such assembly, every member of such

assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

As already observed that, the evidence of all the

injured witnesses i.e. PW-1/Subhash, PW-2/Sanjay, PW-3/Vinod,

PW-4/Ashok, PW-5/Shrikrishna, PW-6/Rahul, PW-7/Sahebrao

and PW-9/Chandrashekhar consistently stated that all the

accused came in the courtyard by holding weapons in their

hands and started assaulting Vinod, therefore they intervened

and they were also assaulted. The evidence of these witnesses is

consistent to show that, accused No.1/Laxmikant was holding

sword, accused No.3/Adesh was holding spear and accused

No.2/Amar was holding stick. They have specifically narrated

who has assaulted whom. These witnesses evidence consistently

shows that, it was the accused No.1/Laxmikant and accused

No.3/Adesh who assaulted injured by means of sword and

spear.

Section 149 of IPC creates a constructive or

vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for
42 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by

any other member of that assembly. By applying this principle

every member of an unlawful assembly to be held guilty of the

offence committed by any member of that assembly in

prosecution of the common object of that assembly. The factum

of causing injury or not causing injury would not be relevant

when an accused is roped in with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.

The question which is relevant and which is required to be

answered by the Court is whether the accused is the member of

an unlawful assembly or not.

In the case of [Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs.

Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106714908/) (2018) 7 SCC 743, wherein the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

"in a cases where a large number of accused constituting
"unlawful assembly" are alleged to have attacked and
killed one or more persons, it is not necessary that each of
the accused should inflict fatal injuries or any injury at all.
Invocation of Section 149 of IPC is essential in such cases
for punishing the members of such unlawful assembly on
the ground of vicarious liability even though they are not
accused of having inflicted fatal injuries in appropriate
cases if the evidence on record justifies. The mere presence
of an accused in such an unlawful assembly is sufficient to
render him vicarious liable under Section 149 of IPC for
causing the death of the victim of the attack provided that
the accused are told that they have to face a charge
rendering them vicarious liable under Section 149 of IPC
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC."
43 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

In Nitya Nand Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Criminal

Appeal No. 1348/2014 decided on 04.09.2024 , the Hon'ble

Apex Court observed by reproducing para No.22 of the

judgment of [Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai

Dudabhai Patel](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106714908/).

"22. When a large number of people gather together
(assemble) and commit an offence, it is possible that only
some of the members of the assembly commit the crucial act
which renders the transaction an offence and the remaining
members do not take part in that "crucial act" -- for
example in a case of murder, the infliction of the fatal
injury. It is in those situations, the legislature thought it fit
as a matter of legislative policy to press into service the
concept of vicarious liability for the crime. Section 149 IPC
is one such provision. It is a provision conceived in the
larger public interest to maintain the tranquility of the
society and prevent wrongdoers (who actively collaborate
or assist the commission of offences) claiming impunity on
the ground that their activity as members of the unlawful
assembly is limited."
56. Recently, in the judgment of [Zainul Vs. The State of

Bihar](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118646162/) in Criminal Appeal No. 1187/2014 dated 07.10.2025 , the

Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:

"49. The expression observed that "in prosecution of the
common object" means that the offence committed must
be directly connected with the common object of the
assembly, or that the act, upon appraisal of the evidence,
must appear to have been done with a view to accomplish
that common object. In Charan Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 205, this Court held that the test
for determining the "common object" of an unlawful
assembly must be assessed in light of the conduct of its
members, as well as the surrounding circumstances. It can
be deduced from the nature of the assembly, the weapons
44 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

carried by its members, and their conduct before, during,
or after the incident."
57. It is further observed that, Section 149 of IPC makes

all the members of an unlawful assembly constructively liable

when an offence is committed by any member of such assembly

with a view to accomplish the common object of that assembly

or the members of the assembly knew that such an offence was

likely to be committed. However, such liability can be fasten

only upon proof that the act was done in perusal of the common

object.

Thus, once the existence of a common object

amongst the members of an unlawful assembly is established, it

is not imperative to prove that each member committed an

overt act. The liability under this provision is attracted once it is

certain that an individual had knowledge that the offence

committed was a probable consequence in furtherance of the

common object, thereby rendering him a "member" of the

unlawful assembly. Utmost it is important to consider whether

the assembly consisted of some members who were merely

viewers and who were there out of curiosity, without the

knowledge, then such persons cannot be said to be members of
45 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

the unlawful assembly. Thus, the existence of a common object

is to be inferred from certain circumstances such as:

a. the time and place at which the assembly was formed;

b. the conduct and behaviour of its members at or near
the scene of the offence;

c. the collective conduct of the assembly, as distinct from
that of individual members;

d. the motive underlying the crime;

e. the manner in which the occurrence unfolded;

f. the nature of the weapons carried and used;

g. the nature, extent, and number of injuries inflicted, and
other relevant considerations.

By applying these consideration in the present case,

oral evidence of injured witnesses shows that, all accused came

at the spot together with deadly weapons like swords, spear and

sticks in their hands and assaulted the injured mentioned above

and thereafter left the place. The appearance of all the accused

at the spot alongwith the weapons causing the injuries to the

injured, is sufficient to show their common object. Therefore,

there is no hesitation to hold that, all the Appellants accused

were the members of unlawful assembly and in prosecution of
46 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

their common object they have assaulted the injured persons.

The evidence of these injured witnesses

corroborated by PW-11/Dr. Manoj Nichat Medical Officer shows

that, the injuries sustained by PW-3/Vinod and PW-4/Ashok are

on vital part of the body and sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. These injuries are attributed to the

accused No.1/Laxmikant and accused No.3/Adesh. The CA

report on record also shows that, blood stains are found on the

clothes of injured Ashok and Vinod corroborates the prosecution

case. The CA report further shows that, the soil which was

collected from the spot of incident i.e. in front of the house of

injured Ashok also mixed with blood, which also corroborates

with the fact that the alleged incident has occurred in front of

the house of injured Vinod. Thus, prosecution has proved that

the alleged incident has occurred in front of the house of

injured Vinod.

The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of

Investigating Officer to prove the memorandum statement of

the accused and the discovery of the place where the weapons

were concealed. Admittedly, the panch witnesses have not
47 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

supported the prosecution case. The evidence of Investigating

Officer shows that, the accused No.1/Laxmikant and accused

No.3/Adesh had made the memorandum statement in presence

of panch witnesses. The said memorandum statement was

reduced in writing. The evidence of Investigating Officer as to

the memorandum statement of accused No.1/Laxmikant and

accused No.3/Adesh was commented on the ground that, the

statement of accused No.1/Laxmikant was started at 06.35 p.m.

and there is no mention of the conclusion of the said statement.

The statement of the accused No.3/Adesh was started at 06.55

p.m. The recovery panchnama shows the timing at 07.00 O'

clock and concluded at 08.45 p.m. The spot from which the

weapons were recovered was at a distance of 30 minutes.

Admittedly, the said timing is mentioned by the Investigating

Officer since starting from the Police Station till conclusion of

the panchnama i.e. the recovery part is concerned. Therefore,

no much importance can be given to the said submissions.

Admittedly, the panch witnesses PW-15/Arvind Mohod and

PW-17/Bhujangrao Dahat has not supported the prosecution

case, therefore prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of

Investigating Officer. The conditions necessary for the
48 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are

broadly discussed as under:

"(1) Discovery of facts in consequence of an information
received from accused;

(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;
(3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave
information; and
(4) So much of information as relates distinctively to
the fact thereby discovered is admissible."
62. Thus, what is admissible is the information and the

same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the

Police Officer. In other words, the information given by the

accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles

has to be proved. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act, is the doctrine of confirmation by

subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that

if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any

information obtained from prisoner such a discovery is made on

the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such

discovery is guarantee that the information supplied by the

prisoner is true. The legislative idea in insisting on such

searches to be made in presence of two independent witnesses

of the locality is to ensure the safety of such all articles middled
49 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto.

But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied

by an accused in custody is different from the searching

endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code.

Admittedly, in the present case, PW-15/Arvind and

PW-17/Bhujangrao have not supported the prosecution's case.

However, the evidence of Investigating Officer PW-16/Sanjay

shows that, during interrogation accused No.1/Laxmikant and

accused No.3/Adesh gave a statement that they would produce

the weapons of the offence and accordingly their statements

were recorded in presence of the panchas. The accused Nos. 1

and 3 took them in cattle shed and took out a sword concealed

in a heap of fodder. There is some inconsistency in the evidence

of Investigating Officer as he has not stated anything about the

voluntariness of the statements of the accused. However, the

evidence specifically states that on 20.06.2001 the accused

No.1/Laxmikant initially made a statement in presence of the

panchas which was recorded at Exh. 188 and the accused No.3/

Adesh also made a statement on the same day in presence of the

panchas, which is at Exh. 189. It further shows that, thereafter
50 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

both the accused took them in the cattle shed and shown the

respective places where the articles were concealed. The aspect

of statement whether it is voluntary or not is not challenged by

the defence. It is only denied that, they have not made the

statement. Therefore, the evidence of PW-16/Sanjay is sufficient

to show that, the accused made a voluntary statement in

presence of panchas and the place of concealment was

discovered at the instance of the accused persons. The evidence

of the Investigating Officer as to the recovery is not shattered

during the cross-examination.

In Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/

0126/1978, wherein it was observed that, if the evidence of

Investigating Officer who recovered the material objects is

convincing, the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on

the ground that, seizure witnesses do not support the

prosecution version. Similar view was expressed in [Mohd.

Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/221105/), MANU/SC/2255/2000, and

Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0096/2004 , that

even if panch witness turns hostile, the evidence of person who

affected the recovery would not stand vitiated.

51 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Thus, the evidence of the Investigating Officer can

be considered for proving the recovery as official acts are done

by him is a wise presumption of law recognized by the

Legislature as seen from the provisions of Section 114 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

Though the evidence of the Informant is suffering

from inconsistencies as there are improvements in the evidence,

however, the evidence of other injured eyewitnesses who would

stand on the higher pedestal and their evidence were not

shattered during cross-examination sufficiently shows that the

accused persons were the aggressors, therefore the contention

of the learned Counsel for the accused that it was a free fight is

not sustainable.

The law as to the appreciation of evidence is settled.

The appreciation of the ocular evidence, there is no straight

jacket formula. In the case of [Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. Vs. The

State of Maharashtra](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87935863/) in Criminal Appeal No. 1910/2010

decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.03.2023 laid down the

principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case

as follows:-

52 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

"APPRECIATION OF ORAL EVIDENCE

The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:

"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the
witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of
truth. Once that impression is formed, it is
undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the
evidence more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in
the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the
evidence given by the witness and whether the
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
render it unworthy of belief.

II. If the Court before whom the witness gives
evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion
about the general tenor of evidence given by the
witness, the appellate court which had not this
benefit will have to attach due weight to the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless
there are reasons weighty and formidable it would
not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of
minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial
details.

III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But
courts should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that
the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not
touching the core of the case, hyper technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here
or there from the evidence, attaching importance to
some technical error committed by the investigating
officer not going to the root of the matter would not
ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a
whole.

V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere
53 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

variations falling in the narration of an incident
(either as between the evidence of two witnesses or
as between two statements of the same witness) is an
unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.

VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the
details.

VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An
object or movement might emboss its image on one
person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the
part of another.

IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by
them or heard by them. They can only recall the
main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to
expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment
at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect
people to make very precise or reliable estimates in
such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of
individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events which take place in
rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is
liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.

XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing
cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness
mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of
events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur
of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the
witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear
54 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former
statement though seemingly inconsistent with the
evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount
to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the
potency to discredit the later statement, even if the
later statement is at variance with the former to some
extent it would not be helpful to contradict that
witness."
68. In the light of the above principles if the evidence of

all the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence

and the CA reports which shows blood stains found on the

clothes of PW-3/Vinod and PW-4/Ashok, is sufficient to prove

the charges against the accused. The evidence of the Medical

Officer sufficiently shows that, the injuries sustained by both of

them was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature. Therefore, as far as the charge under Sections 147, 148,

307 read with Section 149 of IPC is duly proved against the

accused persons.

The learned Counsel for the accused, submitted that

during the pendency of this Appeal some of the accused and the

original Complainant entered into the settlement and filed an

application for compounding and recording of compromise. The

Criminal Application (APPA) No. 127/2025 is filed contending
55 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

that, during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal, the

Appellants and Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 in Criminal

Revision No. 184/2007 i.e. Sahebrao Trimbakrao Bobde, Rahul

Sahebrao Bobde, Vinod Narayanrao Bobde and Sanjay

Narayanrao Bobde decided to settle the dispute between them

as by passage of time the relations between them becomes

cordial and to keep their relations healthy they have decided to

settle the dispute amicably.

As can be seen from the evidence, the offences

proved against the accused persons are mainly under [Section

307](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/455468/) of IPC which reads as under:

"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such
circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if
hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
71. While dealing with an identical situation, where an

offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is sought to

be quashed on the basis of a settlement, parameters are [laid

down by](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87935863/) the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Narinder
56 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 SCC

Online 265, which reads as under:

"(VI) Offences under Section 307, I.P.C. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to
be generally treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 LP.C. in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section
307 LP.C. is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead
to proving the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. For this
purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the
nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delecate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by
the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as
to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former
case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be
permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties
is going to result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship."
72. Similarly, in the judgment of [Naushey Ali and others

Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197255464/), 2025(4) SCC 78 , in paragraph Nos. 10

and 11, which is apropos to reproduce the same as under :

"10. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and
Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 and other judgments, this Court held:

57 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

15..........

15.1........

15.2........

15.3........

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act,
etc., would fall in the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against
the society and not against the individual alone, and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a
serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not
rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under
this provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether Incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing
the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of
injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used.
etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore. the
ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision
of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove:

Before we apply this judgment to the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh (supra):

"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it
is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to
take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the
court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times
whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to
physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or
58 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an
offence under Section 307 IPC as well. "
73. In the judgment of [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.

Laxmi Narayan & Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149247382/), [2019] 2 S.C.R. 864 , after elaborately

considering the entire law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has stated in paragraph No. 9.1 as under:

"9.1 However, the High Court has not at all considered the
fact that the offences alleged were non compoundable
offences as per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. From the
impugned judgment and order, it appears that the High
Court has not at all considered the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case, more particularly the
seriousness of the offences and its social impact. From the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it
appears that the High Court has mechanically quashed the
FIR, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
High Court has not at all considered the distinction
between a personal or private wrong and a social wrong
and the social impact. As observed by this Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014)
15 SCC 29, the Court's principal duty, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal
proceedings, should be to scan the entire facts to find out
the thrust of the allegations and the crux of the settlement.
As observed, it is the experience of the Judge that comes to
his aid and the said experience should be used with care,
caution, circumspection and courageous prudence. In the
case at hand, the High Court has not at all taken pains to
scrutinise the entire conspectus of facts in proper
perspective and has quashed the criminal proceedings
mechanically. Even, the quashing of the FIR by the High
Court in the present case for the offences under Sections
307 and 34 of the IPC, and that too in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions."
74. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 307 of
59 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt IPC is not covered under the list of compoundable offences. In

view of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. which prohibits any compounding

except as permitted under the said provision, it would not be

possible to compound the above said offences. As observed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Murali Vs. State rep. by

the Inspector of Police by referring the judgment of [Ram Pujan

Vs. State of UP](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/473374/), [(1973) 2 SCC 456 , that the fact of amicable

settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction

in the quantum of sentence and observed the major offence for

which the Appellants have been convicted is no doubt

non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken

into account in determining the quantum of sentence. It would,

in our opinion, meets the ends of justice if the sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the Appellants is reduced to the

period already undergone. It has further held that, in our

considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order

compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code

ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions.

In the present case, admittedly, all the accused have

not entered into a settlement. It is a part settlement with some

of the accused. The Trial Court has already considered the
60 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

aspect that there was a previous enmity and out of previous

enmity the alleged incident has occurred and shown the

leniency while awarding the punishment. Therefore, I do not

find any reason to interfere even in the aspect of reduction of

sentence, considering the nature of the offence and considering

the fact that, in all 7 to 8 persons sustained the injuries. Out of

them, PW-3/Vinod and PW-4/Ashok sustained the grievous

injuries. Therefore, even accepting the fact that some of the

accused entered into the settlement, no interference is called

for.

The Criminal Revision Application No. 184/2007 is

preferred by one of the accused who is the original complainant

in a cross complaint in connection with Crime No. 19/2001. The

allegations levelled on the basis of a report lodged by Sahadev

Shamrao Tadokar against Sahebrao Bobde, Amol Bobde, Rahul

Bobde, Vinod Bobde, Sanjay Bobde, Subhash Bobde and

Chandrashekhar Bobde that on 05.06.2001 at about 07.00 a.m.

these accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and in

prosecution of common object of such an assembly caused the

injury to Sahadev Tadokar and other injured witnesses and
61 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 148,

324 read with Section 149 of IPC. After completion of the

investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the

accused. Though the offences are triable by the Court of

Magistrate but being it is a cross complaint and both the cross

cases to be decided by the same Court, the case was committed

to the Court of Sessions. Learned Adhoc Additional Sessions

Judge, framed the Charge vide Exh. 21.

In support of the charge prosecution has examined

in all 9 witnesses, as follows:

(i) PW-1 Mahadeo Ramrao Exh.32 Panch
Wanoskar

  (ii)    PW-2   Ishwar            Jairam Exh.34      Panch
                 Jamodkar

  (iii)   PW-3   Sahadeo       Shamrao Exh.35        Informant
                 Talokar

  (iv)    PW-4   Subhash    Sahadeorao Exh.38        Injured
                 Talokar

  (v)     PW-5   Amardeep     Laxmikant Exh.39        ....
                 Nimkarde

  (vi)    PW-6   Mahadeo Sahadeorao Exh.40           ......
                 Talokar

  (vii)   PW-7   Laxmikant Sakharamji Exh.41         .......
                 Nimkarde
                              62              APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

  (viii) PW-8   Sanjay Bhikaji Pande   Exh.43        Investigating
                                                     Officer

  (ix)   PW-9   Dr.     Sivalaruselval Exh.51        Medical Officer
                Sundaramoorthy 78.           On consideration of the evidence, admittedly, PW-1/

Mahadeo and PW-2/Ishwar only stated that, they have signed

on the panchnama. As per the evidence of PW-3/Sahadeo, the

alleged incident has occurred when he was present in the house

and they were beaten by all the accused who came there

alongwith the weapons in their hands. As per his evidence

accused No.2/Amol gave a blow of stick on his head. His son

Subhash was also beaten by all the accused. His

cross-examination shows that, the relationship between him and

accused were strained. It further came in his evidence that, he

was prosecuted in a cross complaint. It further came that there

were quarrels between him and the accused before the incident.

As far as the spot of incident is concerned, nothing is on record

to show that, the alleged incident has occurred in front of his

house.

Evidence of PW-4/Subhash also shows that, after

hearing a commotion near his house, he went near the house of
63 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Vairale, wherein the quarrel was going on between his father

and the accused. Accused persons beat his father and brother

and they both have sustained the injuries. He was assaulted by

accused Chandrashekhar. During his cross-examination this

aspect that he was assaulted by Chandrashekhar was brought on

record in the manner of omission. Thus, he has not stated

during his statement that he was assaulted by Chandrashekhar.

PW-5/Amardeep only states that, the accused

persons beat PW-3/Sahadeo, PW-4/Subhash, and one Mahadeo

Talokar and he received the injuries when he was separating the

quarrel. As per his evidence the place of incident is at a distance

of 100 feet from his house. He has also not narrated regarding

the exact place of incident. On the contrary, his evidence shows

that the alleged incident has taken place near the house of Dilip

Bobde. Thus, admittedly the alleged incident has taken place

near the house of Dilip Bobde and Vinod Bobde.

Evidence of PW-6/Mahadeo and PW-7/Laxmikant is

also on the similar line. They were also accused in the cross

complaint.

64 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

The evidence of the Investigating Officer also shows

that spot of incident is in the middle of the locality. He further

admits that, Subhash Bobde gave a report against the

Informant. On the basis of which, Crime No.18/2001 was

registered.

There is no dispute that, Mahadeo Talokar, Sahadeo

Talokar, Subhash Talokar and Amardip Nimkarde has received

the injuries in the said incident. The evidence on record shows

that, there was a scuffle between the prosecution witnesses and

the accused persons. The accused persons in Crime No. 18/2001

who are the prosecution witnesses in Crime No. 19/2001 were

the aggressors. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly

considered that, the evidence in cross complaint sufficiently

shows that, the prosecution witnesses are the aggressors and

initiated the quarrel. In the said incident, these witnesses have

also sustained the injuries. The evidence of prosecution

witnesses is not consistent with the evidence of Medical Officer.

The learned Counsel for the Applicant, placed

reliance on various judgments and submitted that, the accused

persons who are the Respondents in Criminal Revision were the
65 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the

common object of the said assembly they have assaulted the

Applicant and other prosecution witnesses. However, the entire

evidence nowhere states that the Respondents in Criminal

Revision were the members of the unlawful assembly. On the

contrary, the alleged incident has occurred in front of the house

of one of the Respondent Vinod Bobde. The prosecution

witnesses in cross complaint proved the spot of incident as well

as the Applicant and the other prosecution witnesses were the

aggressors. The Respondents in criminal Revision have received

the grievous injuries. It is further proved that, it was the

Applicant and other prosecution witnesses formed the unlawful

assembly and went in front of the house of Vinod Bobde and

assaulted him as well as other Respondents. Thus, the entire

evidence shows that it was the Applicant and other prosecution

witnesses who formed the unlawful assembly and in prosecution

of their common object went at the house of the Respondents

and in pursuance of the common object assaulted them.

The present Criminal Revision Application is filed by

the Applicant for setting aside the acquittal passed by the Adhoc
66 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. Considering the scope of

Revision, reappreciation of the evidence is not permissible. The

only thing this Court has to see is whether any illegality or error

is committed by the Court while acquitting the accused. In view

of Section 397 of Cr.P.C., this Court or the Sessions Court is

empowered to call for and examine record of any proceeding

before any inferior criminal Court situated within its or its local

jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to

the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or

order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any

proceeding of such inferior Court and may, when calling for

such record direct that the execution of any sentence or order

be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be

released on bail or on his bond pending the examination of the

record.

Thus, the scope of the Revision is very limited, only

to see as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding

and sentence or order. While exercising the revisional powers

especially while dealing with the orders of acquittal, cardinal

principle to be kept in mind is that there is a presumption of
67 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

innocence in favour of the accused unless the accused is proved

to be guilty, the presumption continues and finally culminates

into fact when the case ends in acquittal. The possibility of two

views in criminal cases is not an extraordinary phenomenon

while considering the orders of acquittal. A fact cannot be lost

sight that the Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence

and passed an order of acquittal. Admittedly, the order of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court after appreciating the

evidence, the High Court is not expected to sit as a Court of

Appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. However, when the

findings of the Courts below where on the basis of no evidence

or evidence which even if believe in entirety cannot prove the

guilt of accused for the offence charged exercise of revisional

jurisdiction.

After considering the record, the view taken by the

learned Trial Judge while acquitting the Respondents is a

plausible view and therefore, no interference is called for.

For the reasons discussed above and on

consideration of the oral evidence, medical evidence and

scientific evidence and other proven fact, in my considered
68 APEAL.171-2007 & ANR.JUDGMENT.odt

                             opinion, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

                             Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.171/2007. Therefore, no

                             interference is called for. The Criminal Revision is also devoid of

                             merits and liable to be dismissed. In view of that, I proceed to

                             pass the following order.

ORDER

                                   i.   The Criminal Appeal No. 171/2007 is dismissed.

                                   ii. The Criminal Revision Application No.184/2007 is
                                       dismissed.

iii. The Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 171/2007
shall surrender before the Superintendent Central
Prison, Amravati on 06.04.2026 to undergo the
sentence.

iv. R & P be sent to the Trial Court.

    Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of

                         accordingly.

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/03/2026 18:17:26

Related changes

Hawkers Union vs Town Vending Committee - Writ Petition

Priority review Mar 25, 2026 • India Bombay High Court • Courts & Legal

Vilas Annasaheb Mahale vs State of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal

Priority review Mar 25, 2026 • India Bombay High Court • Courts & Legal

Bombay High Court: Hawkers Stall vs State of Maharashtra

Priority review Mar 25, 2026 • India Bombay High Court • Courts & Legal

Tammanna vs State of Karnataka - Anticipatory Bail Application

Priority review Mar 25, 2026 • India Karnataka High Court • Courts & Legal

Sri R M Ajay v. State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

Priority review Mar 25, 2026 • India Karnataka High Court • Courts & Legal

Suresh vs State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

Priority review Mar 25, 2026 • India Karnataka High Court • Courts & Legal

Source

India Bombay High Court indiankanoon.org/feeds/latest/bombay

Courts & Legal

Analysis generated by AI. Source diff and links are from the original.

Classification

Agency

Filed

March 24th, 2026

Instrument

Enforcement

Legal weight

Binding

Stage

Final

Change scope

Substantive

Document ID

2026:BHC-NAG:4698

Who this affects

Applies to

Criminal defendants

Geographic scope

IN IN

Taxonomy

Primary area

Criminal Justice

Operational domain

Legal

Topics

Appeals Sentencing

Get Courts & Legal alerts

Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sahdev Tadokar v. State of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal

Summary

What changed

Source document (simplified)

Sahdev S/O Shamrao Tadokar vs The State Of Mah. Thru P.S.O. And 7 Ors. on 24 March, 2026

Mr. B.H. Tekam, Advocate for the Non-applicant Nos. 7 & 8.

Related changes

Source

Classification

Who this affects

Taxonomy

Browse Categories

Get alerts for this source