Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
SUKHDEO, VINAYAK & OTHERSTUKA RAM & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/1997
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 235 OF 1989
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 1990
J U D G M E N T
S.P. KURDUKAR, J.
A small village called Anterweli in Tehsil Gangakhed
Distt. Parbhani on June 4, 1982 at about 2.00 p.m. witnessed
the gruesome murders of three brothers namely, Hari, Govinda
& Limbaji, sons of Tuljiram Ghaobale, and Narayan son of
Bapu Tayade who happened to be their nephew (sister’s son)
at the hands of a riotous mob of nearly forty Wanjari people
residing in the same village. In the said rioting incident,
apart from four deaths, as many as six persons, namely,
Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW
8), Kundlik (PW 21) and Vithal (PW 22)- the complainant has
sustained serious injuries. The deceased persons and injured
witnesses belonged to Budh community whereas most of the
accused persons numbering forty belonged to Wanjari
community. In substance, the members of Wanjari community
has attacked the members of Budha community.
2. The members of the Wanjari community of village
Anterweli firmly believed that the members of Budha
community were involved in committing thefts and dacoities
in the neighbouring villages thereby causing a bad
reputation to the residents of the said village. The members
of the Budha community were earning their livelihood either
as agricultural labourers or taking the lands of Wanjari
people on lease. Some members of the Budha community were
also working as Watandar Ramoshis (night watchmen). In view
of the alleged notoriety of the Harijan community as a
whole, the Wanjari community decided not to engage the
services of the former either as agricultural labourers or
as a tenants of their lands. Rift between the two
communities further widened because of constant bickerings
between them. The Harijan community people having found that
their living in the said village has rendered miserable,
they decided to migrate to the village Mankhed in Ahmedpur
taluka, Distt. Latur and accordingly had shifted to that
village about one and a half years before the incident in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
question took place.
3. It is the prosecution case that 3/4 days prior to June
4, 1982, the three brothers (since deceased), their nephew
Narayan (since deceased) alongwith their family members and
friends came to their village Anterwali to attend the
marriage of their relation which was to take place in the
said village and also to settle few financial commitments
that deceased Govinda has made to Gyanik (A-8). During that
period, Babu son of Rama Jayebhaye belonging to Harijan
community was being taken to police station at Gangakhed for
having abused Sopan Mukada, the Wanjari, under the influence
of liquor. Govinda who was then present negotiated with A-8
in the presence of Prabhu (A-5), Shivaji (A-7). Arun (A-22)
and Udhav (A-39) by requesting him to let Babu be freed and
took responsibility to pay Rs. 1500/- by way of
compensation. This amount was, however, not paid to A-8 till
the date of incident. This incident had added to further
severe bickerings between them and Wanjari people took it as
a serious insult. In order to patch up the differences,
Govinda (since deceased) and A-8 and his associates had a
meeting at the house of Sita Ram Patil at Shelmoha which is
about 2 km away from village Anterweli. It was then decided
that Govinda would pay the amount to A-8 and would not enter
the village Anterweli. In view of this compromise. Govinda,
his brothers, Narayan and other family members shifted to a
place adjacent to village Anterweli and started living
there. The marriage of the relative of Govinda took place on
Ist June, 1982 without any disturbance.
4. The Wanjari people did not approve the stay of Govinda
and others on the outskirts of village Anterweli and this
has lead to the incident in question. It is the prosecution
case that a mod of as many as forty persons belonging to the
Wanjari community, of which, two were juvenile offenders
went to the basti of Govinda. The juvenile offender Charnu
(A-4) was the main cause for the incident in question. On
June 3, 1982, Manika (PW 15) sensing some trouble returned
to his house and cautioned his brothers Govinda, Hari and
Limba that they should be more vigilant in future. It was
then alleged by the prosecution that on June 4, 1982 at
about 7.00 a.m., an incident over the prize money of Rs.
20/- took place. Phul Chand (PW 8) was alleged to have
retained the said prize money. It was payable to Laxman (A-
2) and , therefore, he had gone to the house of Govinda and
Manika (PW 15 requesting them to ask Phul Chand (PW 8) to
pay the said prize money to him (A-21). Manika (PW 15) paid
the said money to A-21 on behalf of Phul Chand (PW 8) and
the said dispute was resolved.
5. Coming to the main incident of rioting, murders etc.,
it was alleged by the prosecution that all the forty accused
persons named in the First Information Report (Ex. 114) came
to the house of Manika (PW 15) shouting slogans and hurling
abuses on him and his inmates. These accused persons were
armed with axes and sticks. Gyanik (A-8), however,
intervened and thereafter they all returned to their
village. Sensing more trouble from the Wanjari community,
Govinda and his brothers became more conscious and asked
Sopan (PW 2) and their family members to remain inside the
house. As expected, all the forty accused named in FIR armed
with deadly weapons came to the house of Manika (PW 15). As
soon as they reached there, a signal was given by Manika to
Hari, Govinda, Limbaji and Narayan (since deceased) to run
away from the house. When they were running alongwith their
wives towards the hill side known as KUMBHARMATICHA MAL
situated at a distance of two to three furlongs, the riotous
mob chased them and caused brutal attack on Hari, Govinda
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
and Limba by means of axes, sticks and stones, as a result
of which, they died on the spot. Narayan who had taken
refuge in the house of one Rama son of Dhudhaji was taken
out of that house and when he was running away, he was
mercilessly hacked to death by the accused persons. During
the said assault, it is alleged by the prosecution that
Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW
8) and Manika (PW 15) were assaulted with the sticks causing
injuries to them. Limba who has sustained serious bleeding
injuries was crying for water but, however, Arun (A-22)
instead of giving water passed his urine in his mouth. This
shows how the ghastly persons on the family of Govinda, his
brothers and nephew who succumbed to their injuries on the
spot itself.
6. Ramesh (PW 1) and Manika (PW 15) who had seen the
entire incident, took to their heels to inform their
relatives who were staying at Dharmapuri, Ambajogai and
Parali. They then went to Gangakhed police station where
they come to know that police had already left for village
Anterweli. Manika (PW 15 alongwith Ambadas then went to the
bungalow of S.P., Parbhani reached village Anterweli on
Saturday, the June 5, 1982 at about 9.00 a.m. Limbajirao,
Police Patil of the village Anterweli had forwarded his
report on June 4, 1982 at about 4.30 p.m. to the police
station at Gangakhed. PSI Kalve (PW 23), who reached village
Anterweli during the night of June 4/5, 1982, commenced the
investigation. In the meantime, Kedari (PW 24). D.S.P. who
reached the place of occurrence took over the investigation.
After holding the inquest panchanamas on the dead bodies of
Govinda, Hari, Limbaji and Narayan, Dr. Ramgopal Biyani (PW
3) and Dr. Uttam Ramarao Gujarati (PW 4) were requested to
come to village Anterweli for holding the autopsy on the
dead bodies in the village itself. After completing the post
mortem examination on the four dead bodies, they were
allowed to be cremated in the evening of June 5, 1982. On
conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be
filed against forty accused persons for offences punishable
under Section 147, 148, 452, 302, 307, 324, 506 part II,
323, 452/149, 302/149, Code. Charnu (A-4) who was a juvenile
offender, his trial was separated and was entrusted to the
juvenile court.
7. The appellants and other acquitted accused persons
denied the allegations levelled against them as according to
them, they have been falsely implicated in the present
crime. According to them, the deceased and his community
people were involved in several theft and dacoity cases and
because of this, they bore grudge against the accused
persons. On may occasions, they were caught red handed while
committing the theft/dacoity and were handed over to the
police. They pleaded that they are innocent and committed no
offence. They pleaded that they be acquitted.
8. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many
as 24 witnesses, of whom, more than a dozen witnesses
including the six injured eve witnesses were the witnesses
of facts. In addition to these witnesses, the prosecution
also examined Dr. Ramgopal Biyani (PW 3) and Dr. Uttam
Ramrao Gujarati (PW 4) to prove the post mortem examination
reports as well as the injury certificates issued to various
injured witnesses. Various panchnamas were also sought to be
proved through panch witnesses. The accused, however, did
not lead any evidence.
9. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on appraisal of oral
and documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order
dated August 24, 1983 convicted Sukhdeo (A-1), Vinayak (A-
3), Prabhu (A-5), Gyanik (A-8), Shriram (A-9), Bhima (A-10),
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
Arun (A-22) and Ashok (A-38) for offences punishable under
Section 147, 452 read with Section 149 IPC, under Section
323 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 302 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each
one of them to suffer imprisonment for life in addition to
various other terms of sentences on other counts. All the
substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The
remaining accused persons were, however, acquitted of all
the charges.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of
convictions and sentences, the convicted accused persons
preferred Criminal Appeal No.133 of 1983 whereas the State
of Maharashtra preferred Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1983 to
Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad. the High Court vide
its judgment and order dated 28th April, 1988 dismissed
Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1983 filed by the convicted
accused persons and affirmed their convictions and
sentences. Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1983 filed by the
State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of remaining
accused persons was partly allowed and the High Court
convicted Tuka Ram (A-2), Gangadhar (A-6), Shivaji (A-7),
Atma Ram (A-11), Suryabhan (A-12), Sapan (A-13), Kondiba (A-
14), Sampati (A-18), Waman (A-27) and Udhav (A-39) for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452 read with
Section 149 IPC as also under Sections 323/149, 302/149 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to
suffer imprisonment for life and other terms of sentences on
other counts. The State appeal, filed against the acquittal
of Shripati (A-28) and Kundlik (A-35) came to be dismissed
and their acquittal was confirmed. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid judgment and order of convictions and sentences
passed by the High Court in criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1983,
the appellants/accused by Special Leave have filed Criminal
Appeal Nos. 31 and 235 of 1989, other batch of the
appellants/accused persons whose acquittal was set aside by
the High Court and came to be convicted have filed the
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1990 in this Court. Since all
these appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the
High Court, they are being disposed of by this judgment.
11. The appellants before us can be conveniently grouped
into two categories (1) the appellants who have been
convicted by the trial court for various offence and their
convictions and sentences were upheld by the High Court, (2)
the appellants who have been acquitted of all the charges by
the trial court but their acquittal had been set aside by
the High Court and came to be convicted.
The first category of appellants consists of Sukdeo (A-1),
Vinayak (A-3), Prabhu (A-5), Gyanik (A-8), Shriram (A-9),
Bhima (A-10), Arun (A-22) and Ashok (A-38). The second
category consists of Tuka Ram (A-2), Gangadhar (A-6),
Shivaji (A-7), Atmaram (A-11), Surya Bhan (A-12), Sapan (A-
13), Kondiba (A-14), Sampati (A-18), Waman (A-27) and Udhav
(A-39). All these appellants hereinafter will be referred to
in the same order as they were arraigned before the trial
Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the judgments of the learned courts below and
the materials on record.
12. It is not and cannot be disputed that Hari Govinda,
Limba and Narayan met with homicidal deaths due to murderous
assault with deadly weapon on them in an incident that
occurred on June 4, 1982. It is, therefore, not necessary to
refer to the medical evidence in this behalf in detail and
suffice it to briefly indicate the injuries sustained by
them during the incident in question. The High Court in its
judgment in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 has set out in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
details the injuries sustained by the four victims and which
were supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Ram Gopal
Biyani (PW 3) and Dr. Uttam Ramrao Gujarati (PW 4). Dr.
Ramgopal Biyani (PW 3) conducted the post mortem examination
(Ex. 37) on the dead body of Govinda and found as may as ten
incised injuries of various dimensions in addition to the
two wheel mark injuries, multiple small abrasions and
contusions with abrasions over the left thigh.
Dr. Ramgopal Biyani (PW-3) held post mortem examination
on the dead body of Limba and found as many as nine external
injuries in his post mortem examination report (Ex.38), of
which, three were incised wounds, one lacerated wound and
two contusions with abrasions and rest were bruises. Dr.
Uttam Ramrao gujarati (PW 4) has held the autopsy on the
dead body of Hari (Ex. 47) and found as many as seventeen
external injuries including nine incised wounds. The post
mortem examination on the dead body of Narayan was also
conducted by Dr. Uttam Ramrao Gujarati (PW 4) who noticed
many external injuries including five incised wounds. His
post mortem examination report is at Ex. 48. Both the
doctors testified in court that injuries sustained by these
deceased persons were ante mortem and incised wounds caused
to them were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. the cause of death in respect of each deceased
person was stated to be shock due to haemorrhage resulting
from the cutting of blood vessels in the bodies. The post
mortem examination reports of the four deceased persons
produced at Ex. 37, Ex. 38 Ex. 47 and Ex. 48 were duly
proved by Dr. Biyani (PW 3) and Dr. Gujarati (PW 4). In
view of this medical evidence, we see no hesitation in
affirming the findings recorded by the courts below that
four deceased persons met with homicidal deaths.
13. The backdrop of the incident in question was the belief
entertained by the residents of village Anterweli belonging
to Wanjari community that the residents of Budha community
of the said village were involved in several dacoities and
thefts bringing bad name to the residents of the village
Anterweli. That belief further perpetuated by causing
harassment to the people of Budha community so much so that
their Gawki, Ramoshi and employments as agricultural
labourers were discontinued by the Wanjari community.
Resultantly, one and a half year back, some of the families
of Harijans shifted to far off villages to earn their
livelihood. It is in this background, Govinda, Limba and
Hari had shifted to that village Mankhed in Ahmedpur taluka
but because of some financial commitments and social
obligations, these four persons had come back to village
Anterweli after a period of one and a half years. Few days
prior to the incident, all the four persons had come to
village Anterweli to join the marriage function of their
close relative which took place on June 1, 1982 without any
hindrance. During these three to four days, two major
incidents took place; one as regards the return of debt by
one of the Harijans to Gyanik (A-8) for which Govinda stood
guarantor and in default agreed to pay the said amount;
second, over the prize money of Rs. 20/- which was to be
paid to Laxman (A-21) was infact paid by Manika (PW 15) on
behalf of Phul Chand (PW 8) to Laxman (A-21). Govinda,
however, could not pay Rs. 1500/- and this had further
aggravated the strained relations between the two
communities. It is in this background, we may now proceed to
consider the evidence of various eye witnesses including the
injured witnesses.
14. The incident in question was reported to the police
station at Gangakhed vide the First Information Report (Ex.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
114) lodged by Limbajirao, Police Patil of the village.
Manika (PW 15) is an eye witness who testified as to what
happened on June 4, 1982 as also various developments
preceding the incident in question. He stated that the
members of the family of the deceased and their associates
were sitting in his house whereas his son Vishnu was made to
sit on the terrace to keep a vigil. At about 2.00 p.m., a
riotous mob consisting of about forty persons (of which, the
appellants were the members) came to his house armed with
deadly weapons like axes, sticks and started giving slogan
and abusing the Harijan community and in particular the
victims family. Vishnu who was sitting on the terrace
informed him (Manika) that the riotous mob was approaching
his house and the victims and their family members should
run away for their safety. Accordingly, the victims started
running but the members of the riotous mob chases and caught
them near the hill known as Kumbharmaticha Mal. All the
appellants thereafter caused assault on Govinda, Hari and
Limba by means of axes, sticks and stones. The wives of the
victims were following them and requested not to kill but
according to this witness, the appellants did not pay any
heed and were saying that they should be finished forever.
During this assault, Hari, Govinda and Limba sustained
incised and lacerated wounds and died on the spot. Manika
(PW 15) further stated that Narayan who had taken refuge in
the house of Rama Dhudhaji was dragged out of the said
house and was taken to the place known as Mariay Platform
and then mercilessly hacked to death by the members of an
unlawful assembly. Narayan also died instantaneously. He
further stated that during the said assault, the riotous mob
assaulted the witnesses causing them injuries and thereafter
they fled away. Manika (PW 15) further deposed that during
the said incident, he also sustained injuries alongwith
other persons namely, Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu
(PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Kundlik (PW 21) and Vithal (PW
22). This is the substratum on which the entire prosecution
case rested. This is the substratum on which the entire
prosecution case rested. This witness was cross examined at
a great length but, however, we do not see any material
brought out during the cross-examination which could
discredit his testimony. It also needs to be mentioned that
the incident took place in the day time at about 2.00 p.m.
on June 4, 1982. All the appellants were personally known to
this witness since they are the residents of the same
village and , therefore, mistaken identity of any of these
appellants was out of question. The injuries sustained by
these three deceased persons as reflected in the post mortem
examination reports clearly bore out how the three victims
were mercilessly beaten by the appellants and other members
of the riotous mob. The courts below in our opinion have
rightly accepted the evidence of Manika as trustworthy.
15. We may now consider the complicity of Sukhdeo (A-1),
Vinayak (A-3), Prabhu (A-5), Gyanik (A-8), Bhima (A-10),
Madhav (A-20) and Ashok (A-38) in the present crime. The
prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses of facts who
testified the role attributed to these appellants. It was
urged on behalf of the appellants that most of these eye
witnesses have made improvements in their evidence in court
by implicating as many accused persons asa possible and,
therefore, the evidence of such witnesses be discarded. It
was further contended that no independent witness was
examined by the prosecution as witness of fact and the
witnesses who have deposed against the appellants belong to
the Harijan community and in view of the prosecution case
that there existed an enmity between the two groups, it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
would be unsafe to sustain the convictions on such evidence.
16. As regards the first contentions, we see no substance
because the incident took place in the locality where these
Harijans were residing and the said place was situated few
furlongs away from the village abadi. Moreover, the Wanjari
community as a united front had caused the attack on
Harijans and, therefore, it would be futile to expect that
any person from the village would support the cause of
Harijans. All these witnesses of facts assuming to be
closely related to the deceased persons, their evidence
cannot be discarded on that score. All that is needed in
such a case is that the court must scrutinize the evidence
of such witnesses with greater caution.
17. Coming to the second contention that eye witnesses have
improved the prosecution story in court and be branded as
untrustworthy of credence, we are unable to accept this
criticism. We were taken through the evidence of eye
witnesses and we are inclined to accept the evidence of such
of the eye witnesses whose evidence of eye witnesses and we
are inclined to accept the evidence of such of the eye
witnesses whose evidence is free from omissions and
contradictions. Following this rule, we may scrutinize the
evidence led by the prosecution against Sukhdeo (A-1),
Vinayak (A-3), Prabhu (A-5), gyanik (A-8), Shriram (A-9),
Bhima (A-10), Arun (A-22) and Ashok (A-38). Ramesh (PW 1),
Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8) and Manika
(PW 15) who in unmistakable terms referred to the
participation of A-3 in the present crime as a member of an
unlawful assembly. So is the evidence of ramesh (PW 1),
Sopan (PW 2), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Manika (PW
15), Mahananda (PW 17), Bainabai (PW 18) and Padmin (PW 20).
As against A-8, Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW
6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati
(PW 16) and Bainabai (PW 18) have consistently deposed as
regards his role. In respect of A-9, the consistent evidence
was comprised of Ramesh (PW 1), Bapu (PW 7), Manika (PW 15),
Kalavati (PW 16, Mahananda (PW 17) and Bainabai (PW 18). The
participation of A-10 in the present crime was deposed to be
Ramesh (PW 1), Bapu (PW 7), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16)
and Mahananda (PW 17). The involvement of A-22 being a
member of an unlawful assembly and his participation in the
ghastly murders was consisted of Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW
6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Mahananda (PW 17 and
Bainabai (PW 18). The role attributed to A-38 in the present
crime was deposed to by Ramesh (PW 1), Bapu (PW 7), Kalavati
(PW 16) and Bainabai (PW 18). We have carefully gone through
the evidence of the above witnesses of facts and we are
satisfied that the findings of facts recorded by the courts
below as regards these appellants being the members of the
unlawful assembly sharing a common object and in pursuance
thereof causing assault on four victims by axes, sticks etc.
and thereby committing their murder suffer from no
infirmity. Further more, the evidence of those eye witnesses
find corroboration from the medical evidence vis- a-vis the
injuries on the four deceased persons and the weapons used
by them. In addition to this evidence, there is also other
materials on record in the form of recovery of certain
incriminating articles through seizure panchnamas and the
evidence of panch witnesses thereof. The trial court as well
as the High Court in their well reasoned judgments have
discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record very
carefully and we are in agreement with the said appreciation
of evidence and findings recorded by them. There is no
substance in the Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1989 and 235 of
1989 filed on behalf of the appellants.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
18. That brings us to the case of the other set convicted
appellants, namely, Tuka Ram (A-2), Gangadhar (A-6), Shivaji
(A-7), Atmaram (A-11), Suryabhan (A-12), Sapan (A-13),
Kondiba (A-14), Sampati (A-18), Waman (A-27) and Udhav (A-
39) who were acquitted by the trial court of all the charges
but their order of acquittal was set aside by the High Court
and came to be convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 147, 148, 452/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment
for life and other various terms of sentences. After going
through the evidence and other materials on record, we find
that their convictions and sentences do call for any
interference. While assailing the conviction of all these
appellants, learned counsel urged that the High Court was in
error in setting aside the order of acquittal passed in
their favour. The reasons for acquittal recorded by the
trial court were based on proper appreciation of evidence
and the High Court was totally unjustified in taking a
different view. At the most, it would be a case of two
possible view but that by itself could not be ground to set
aside the order of acquittal. the High Court, therefore, had
committed an error while interfering with the order of
acquittal. In order to find out the sustainability of this
contention, we have gone through the evidence of the
witnesses of facts very carefully. It may also be noted that
the statements of many witnesses were recorded under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These witnesses were
searchingly cross-examined by the defence, yet no material
could be brought out on record to discredit their evidence.
The evidence which is consistent and free from omissions and
contradictions against the appellants is as under:-
The complicity of A-2 in the present crime was deposed
to by Ramesh (PW 1), Bainabai (PW 18), Padmin (PW 20) and
Kundlik (PW 21). As against A-7, the evidence of Sopan (PW
2), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16), Padmin (PW 20) and
Kundlik (PW 21) is consistent. As against Atmaram (A-11),
the evidence of Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Manika (PW 15)
and Kalavati (PW 16) is unblemished. As far as participation
of A-6 is concerned, Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Manika (PW
15), Kalavati (PW 16), Mahananda (PW 17), Padmin (PW 20) and
Kundlik (PW 21) have consistently deposed about his role in
the present crime. The complicity of A-12 was deposed to by
Sopan (PW 2), Kalavati (PW 16), Padmin (PW 20) and Kundlik
(PW 21). The role of A-13 was again consistently deposed to
by Ramesh (PW 1), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16),
Mahananda (PW 17), Bainabai (PW 18), Padmin (PW 20) and
Kundlik (PW 21). Against A-14, Sopan (PW 2), Mahananda (PW
17) and Padmin (PW 20) have given unimpeachable evidence.
The involvement of A-18 in the present crime was testified
by Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2), Manika (PW 15) and Mahananda
(PW 17). The role attributed to A-27 was deposed to by
Ramesh (PW 1), Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16), Mahananda
(PW 17), Bainabai (PW 18), Padmin (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW
21). The participation of A-39 in the present crime was
consistently testified by Ramesh (PW 1), Sopan (PW 2),
Manika (PW 15), Kalavati (PW 16), Mahananda (PW 17),
Bainabai (PW 18), Padmin (PW 20) and Kundlik (PW 21). The
High Court in its judgment has discussed the evidence of
these prosecution witnesses very carefully while setting
aside their acquittal and convicting them for the aforesaid
offences. We are taken through the evidence of these eye
witnesses and we are in agreement with the findings recorded
by the High Court while convicting these appellants.
19. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the
evidence of these witnesses, it could not be said that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
order of acquittal passed by the trial court was
sustainable. The findings of quilt recorded by the High
Court is based on correct appreciation of the evidence of
these witnesses and we find no infirmity in these findings.
There is no substance in the Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1990
filed by the appellants.
20. For the foregoing conclusions, we are of the
considered opinion that there is no substance in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 31 & 235 of 1989 and Criminal Appeal No. 53 of
1990 and the same are dismissed. The appellants, if on bail
shall surrender to their bailbonds to serve out the
remainder of their respective sentences.