- (1.) Nine persons including Atmaram Zingaraji, the appellant before us, were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, to answer the following charges : "That on or about the 5th day of June, 1987 at about 3.00 p.m. at village Swali, you accused Nos. 1 to 9 were member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly committed the offence of rioting and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly, on the above day date, time and place you accused Nos. 1 to 9 were a member of an unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., to cause death of Pralhad Mahadu Ingole, committed the offence of rioting and at the time you were armed with deadly weapons like sticks, axes, daggers etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Thirdly, on the above day date and time and place, you accused Nos. 1 to 9 in furtherance of your common object caused the death of Pralhad Mahadu Ingole by intentionally or knowingly assaulting him with weapons like stick, axe, dagger amd thereby committed murder, as offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C. Fourthly, on the above day, date and time and place you accused Nos. 1 to 9, in furtherance of your common object wrongfully restrained Hiraman, deceased Pralhad and his mother Kamalabai from going to the police station and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 r/w. 149 of I.P. Code."
(2.) On conclusion of the trial,, the learned Judge acquitted them of all the charges and aggrieved thereby the respondent-State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal. The High Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C. (simpliciter) and affirming the acquittal of the eight others. Hence this statutory appeal at the instance of the appellant.
(3.) On going through the impugned judgment of the High Court we find that it has reappraised the entire evidence and given cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the findings of the trial Court, so far as they related to the acquittal of the appellant, were perverse. With the above conclusion of the High Court we are in complete agreement. As regards the other accused persons, the High Court held that the claim of the eye-witnesses that they also took place in the murder was an improvement and that the trial Court was fully justified in acquitting them.;