PRAVIN DHONDIRAM CHORGE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these appeals, appellants/convicted original accused Nos. 1 to 6 are challenging judgment and order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.234 of 2008, thereby convicting them of offence punishable under sections 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For offences punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. For offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal code, appellants/original accused Nos. 1 to 6 are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months by each of them.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case and background facts are thus :

(3.) We have heard S/Shree Pasbola, Shejpal and Khamkar, learned Counsel appearing for appellants/accused in both these appeals at sufficient length of time. It was argued by the learned Counsel for appellants that P.W.2 Kalyani Khillare is a sole witness on whose statement the learned Trial Court has returned the finding of guilt against appellant/accused. She is an interested witness having inimical disposition against appellants/accused. It is argued that P.W.2 Kalpana Khillare is a chance witness and her version is totally unbelievable because she claims to be present at Bafna Petrol Pump while returning to her house at Shinde Wada after purchasing vegetables but evidence on record shows that Bafna Petrol Pump is not on the way from Shinde Wada to Phule Mandai (Market) of Pune. The conduct of P.W.2 Kalyani in not rushing to her house, not going near her injured brother, absence of blood on her clothes makes her unbelievable witness. She is a tutored witness as she claimed to have identified the appellants/accused though the house of maternal uncle of appellants/accused No.1 is not visible from her house at Shinde Wada. The presence of P.W.2 Kalyani on the spot is not properly explained and she being an interested witness, false implication of appellants/accused cannot be ruled out. In support of these contentions, reliance is placed on Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 and Harjinder Singh alias Bhola Vs. State of Punjab, 2004 CRI.L.J. 3854 (S.C.) .