- (1.) Taking exception to the respondents' acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 330 read with Section34 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal and the victim's widow has preferred this revision.
(2.) Facts, which led to prosecution of the respondents - Forest Officers, are as under : Deceased Sheikh Kalu Sheikh Rasul along with Sheikh Jamir Sakawatkhan were involved in stealing forest wood. Respondent No. 2 Premdayal Raghuwanshi, forest employee; respondent No. 3 Ananda Wankhade, forest guard, and respondent No. 4 Damodhar Jadhao, forest watchman, had gone to the forest on9-11-1991 at about6 p. m. to seize illegally cut forest produce. Victim Sheikh Kalu assaulted and injured the forest employees with knife. Sheikh Jamir fled, leaving the stolen forest produce on the spot. Respondent No. 1 Range Forest Officer Tarhale apprehended Sheikh Kalu. It was alleged by one Moti Khan, brother of Sheikh Kalu's wife, that Sheikh Kalu had been severely beaten up by four respondents - forest officials - and admitted to Civil Hospital, Akola, where Sheikh Kalu met with his death in 12-11-1991. On this report, police commenced investigation. After performing inquest on the body of Sheikh Kalu, it was sent for post-mortem examination. Viscera was preserved, but the results from the Laboratory did not show presence of any poison. Police recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, sent charge-sheet to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur. On finding that the accused were involved in an offence of murder triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Akola.
(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the accused of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 330 read with Section34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. THE defence of the accused is that though Sheikh Kalu was apprehended by them, he was left in charge if the driver of the jeep and that he had moved away on his own. Later on, search revealed that Sheikh Kalu was in a pit in a jungle in the said forest and was picked up and lodged in Civil Hospital, Akola, where he succumbed to his injuries. THErefore, according to them, they had not inflicted any injury on Sheikh Kalu after he was apprehended. THEy state that when Sheikh Kalu assaulted respondent Raghuwanshi and others with a knife respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 had retaliated and beaten up Sheikh Kalu with sticks and then he was taken to the Range Forest Office. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence raised, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit all the four respondents. We have heard Shri. D. B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, Shri. S. A. Jaipurkar with Shri. Z. A. Haq, the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, and Shri. S. A. Brahme, the learned counsel for the respondents. We have gone though the entire evidence with the help of the learned counsel in order to find out whether the learned Trial Judge had erred in acquitting the accused.;