LexUNION OF INDIA versus BALI RAMU PAWAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 487 ~ UNION OF INDIA A v. BAU RAMU PAWAR & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 733 of 2002) OCTOBER 15, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ~ JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 1208, 143, 147 and 148 and ss. 302, 307, 323, 324, 427 and 506 (II) rlw s. 149 - Prosecution c under - Trial Court convicting accused Nos .. 1 to 4 for all the offences and acquitting them uls. 1208 - Rest of the accused (accused Nos. 5 to 9) acquitted of all the charges - Appeal challenging acquittal order in respect of all the accused - High Court summarily dismissed the appeal with reference to ac- D cused Nos. 5 to 9 only - On appeal, held: Order of High Court --+ not maintainable - It was passed without discussing reasons for concurring with the view of trial court and without reference to the accused Nos. 1 to 4 - Matter remitted to High Court . . Respondents-acccused (Accused Nos. 5 to 9), E a\ongwith four other accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 4) were prosecuted u/ss. 120 B, 143, 147 and 148 and u/ss. 302, 307 323, 324, 427 and 506 (II) r/w s. 149 IPC. Trial court acquitted the respondents-accused of all the charges, and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 for all the charges except F .._;-f u/s. 1208 IPC. State filed appeal against acquittal of the respondents-accused and against acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 u/s. 120 B IPC. High Court dismissed the same holding that acquittal of respond_ents-accused did not call for interference. Hence the appeal. G Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to ~ High Court, the Court HELD: High Court has simply referred to the conclu- 487 H 488 SUPREME COURT REPPRTS , · [2008] 14 S.C.R. A sion of the trial Court tO come to a conclusion that the same cannot be termed to be unreasonable or perverse. The appeal has been dismissed so far as accused Nos. 5 to 9 are concerned, by holding that it was a possible view. There was no discussion as to why it is so. High Court B has only referred to "the acquittal of accused nos. 5 to 9. The appeal filed by the State also related to the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the charges relating to Section 1208 IPC. No finding was recorded so far as the other four accused persons are concerned and, Jn any event, c accused Nos. 1 to 4 have questioned their conviction, and appeal is pending. Investigation· by CBI was directed as the investigation by the local police was found to be not fair. That being so, the order of the High Court is not main- tainable. [Paras 5, 6 and 7) (493-8-C-E] D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E F No. 733 of 2002 From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.3.2001 of the High Coli rt of Judicature at Bombay in Crimirial Appeal No. 926 of 2000 Harish Chandra, Kiran Bhardwaj, B.K. Prasad and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. Shdharth Luthra, Sanjeev, Sachdeva and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. A~IJ.IT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment df a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning the G correctnes~ of the judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, DadraAnd Nagar Haveff and:Silvassa in Sessions Case No.24/1999. The appeal was filed on the ground that acquittal as recorded was uncalled for. H 2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: UNION OF INDIA v. BALI RAMU PAWAR 489 & ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] --i One Mohan Delkar had contested the election for the post A I of M.P. on behalf of B.J.P. On 6/3/1998, while one Uttam Patel contested the said election on behalf of Shiv Sena in Dadra and Nagar Haveli Constituency. During the said election Uttam Patel was defeated and Mohan Delkar won the election. After declaration of the said election results, there were incidents of B violence and 'shop premises' of Shiv Sena workers were de- .....__.., strayed by the workers of Mohan Delkar. The car of Dr. Guiab Patel (P.W.5) who was the main supporter of Uttam Patel was also destroyed by the supporters of Mohan Delkar. Some of the present accused were also involved in the said incident of burn- c ing the car. It is further case of the prosecution that during the election period, complainant Kumar Shanmugam, the owner of the hotel used to serve eatables to the workers of Uttam Patel, Shiv Sena candidate for M.P. A threat was also given to said Kumar Shanmugam for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.