LexBHIMRAO ANNA INGAWALE AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' " 309 BHIMRAO ANNA INGAWALE AND OTHERS v' STATE OF MAHARASHTRA April 2, 1980 (R. S. PATIIAK AND A. D. KOSHA!. JJ.j ft/tdian P<nal Code 1860 (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302, 149 & 148-AnimosUy and enmity between the six accused and the two deceased [assault by the party of tlte accused on the deceased and their brothers-Party of the accused whether aggressors and have acted in exercise of the right of private defence- conPlclicm-whdh<r valid. Appoilants Nos. I to 6 were charged and convicted for two offences under oection 302 read with section 149 and one under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of two persons, Appellants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 are inter~related, while appellant No. 5 is their friend, and the two deceased are brothers. Appellants Nos. I to 4 and 6 lived jointly in a house which abutted on a road 14 feet wide. Opposite their house lay the one belonging to the two deceased. The waste water emanating from the house of the appellant No. 1 had been flowing towards the road and seeping into the western wall of the house of the deceased. This resulted in ini- mical relation between the two parties. Animosity also prevailed among the partieo on account of the fact that the family of th~ deceased had earlier sold to a !bird person some land which they wanted to repurchase but were thwarted in their designs by the appellants who were instigating the vendee not to re-sell the load to the deceased. The prosecution alleged that on the fateful day, in the morning there was a dispute and altercation between the two deceased and the appellants. The incident was noticed by PW 20 who intervened and separated them di•-armed the two deceased and threw away the sticks which he snatched from them. \ At about 2 P.M. on the same day all .the appellants entered the house of the ' r ~ deoeascd armed with axes and sticks dragged out the deceased on the road and started beating them with their respective weapons, PW 10 and PW 11, the wives of the deceased intervened and they also received injuries at the hands of the appellants. In the meantime PW 13, PW 14 and their brother Jayakar who came to the place of occurrence were beaten by the appellants who thtn- after mllde gOOd their escape. The four injured brothers and the two ladies were removed to the Civil Hospital. The two deceased succumbed to their injuries later. Meanwhile appellant No. 1 reached the police station and he complained A E: G to the sub-inspector (P.W. 24) that he and his family members had been attacked by the party of the deceased, , On learning that the opposite party had arrived at the local Civil Hospital, the sub-inspector reached the hospital and recorded the statement (Ex. 55) of P.W. 12. This formed the basis of the B first information report registered at the police station. On returning to the police stat10n the sub-inspector arrested appelkmt No. I. A c D G H 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. The case of the appe11ants was that feelings of enmity existed between the two opposing families for two or three years prior to the date of the occur· rence, that on that date there was exchange of abuses between appellants Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and the deceased on the ot':her when the latter were about to assault the former but could not do so on account of the intervention of PW 20, that soon afterwards the two deceased and their three brothers assaulted appellants Nos. 1 to 4 with 's:ticks and axes at the latter's house when some of the as.sailants were disarmed and beaten back, tbild that appellanlq Nos. 4 to 6 \Vere not present at the scene of the occurrence· and h!d been involvCd in the case merely because they were related to the other appellants by ties of blood or friendship. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion. that the incident in which the two contending parties exchanged abuses and which came to a close .with the- intervention of PW 20 provided the motive for the ossault in which the two dereaeed lost their Jives and that the eye-witnesses had given details of the occurrence which were omitted from their statements made to the police but that no significance could l:>e attached to this aspect of the matter. He further held that the occurrence took place on the road lying in between the ·res- pective houses of the parties, that the pl!rticipation of all the acCUBed in the occurrence was natural El.nd probable, that the party of the accuse
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.