Bombay

Hig

h Court

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

Criminal Confirmation Case No. 4/2008.

Central Bureau of Investigation(Through D.S.P.,C.B.I.S.C.B. Chennai)Camp at Bhandara.

…..Appellant..versus.

1. Sakru Mahagu Binjewar(Original Accused No.2)

2. Shatrughna Isram Dhande(Original Accused No. 3)

3. Vishwanath Hagru Dhande(Original Accused No. 6)

4. Ramu Mangru Dhande(Original Accused No. 7)

5. Jagdish Ratan Mandlekar(Original Accused No. 8)

6. Prabhakar Jaswant Mandlekar(Original Accused No. 9)

          Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 R/o: Khairlanji          District: Bhandara (Maharashtra State).

...RespondentsMr. Ejaz Khan, Spl. P.P. For appellant.Mr. Sudip Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent nos. 1,5 and 6.Mr. N.S.Khandewale, Advocate for respondent nos. 2,3 and 4.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

2        Criminal Appeal No. 748/2008

1. Shatrughna s/o Isram DhandeAged about 40 years.Occupation: Agricultural Labourer.(Original accused no. 3)

2. Vishwanath s/o Hagru DhandeAged 55 years.Occupation: Agricultural Labourer.(Original accused no. 6)

3. Ramu s/o Mangru DhandeAged 42 years.Occupation; Agricultural Labourer.(Original accused no.7)

4. Shishupal s/o Vishwanath Dhande,aged 20 years.Occupation: Agricultural Labourer.(Original accused no. 11)

          (All the appellants are R/o: Village Khairlanji,           Tah. Mohadi, Distr.Bhandara.)

…....Appellants.

    .versus.

The Central Bureau of Investigation,through its Dy.S.P., C.B.I., S.C.B., Chennai,Camp at Bhandara.

…....Respondent.

Mr. N.S.Khandewale Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Ejaz Khan, Spl. P.P. for respondent.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

3

Criminal Appeal No. 763/2008

1. Gopal Sakru BinjewarAged about 23 years,Occupation: Cultivator,R/o: Khairlanji, Tahsil Mohadi,District: Bhandara.(Original accused no. 1)

2. Sakru Mahagu BinjewarAged about 49 years,Occupation: Cultivator,R/o: Khairlanji, Tahsil Mohadi,District: Bhandara.(Original accused no. 2)

3. Jagdish Ratan MandlekarAged about 51 years,Occupation: Cultivator,R/o: Khairlanji, Tahsil Mohadi,District: Bhandara.(Original accused no.8)

4. Prabhakar Jaswant MandlekarAged about 27 years,Occupation: Cultivator,R/o: Khairlanji, Tahsil Mohadi,District: Bhandara.(Original accused no. 9)

                 …....Appellants..Versus.

Central Bureau of Investigation,through its D.S.P.,, C.B.I., S.C.B.Chennai, Camp at Bhandara.

…....Respondent.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Mr. Sudeep Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellants.Mr. Ejaz Khan, Spl. P.P. for respondent.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

4

                             Criminal Appeal No. 170/2009

Central Bureau of Investigation,Special Crime Branch, Chennai CampO/o: SP, CBI, ACB, 3rd Floor, Block – C,CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, NagpurThrough PSI, CBI, Nagpur.

….Appellant.

Versus.

1. Gopal Sakru Binjewar,Aged about 23 years,OccupatioN: Labour.

2. Shishupal Vishwanath Dhande,Aged about 23 years,Occupation: Cultivator.All residents of Village Khairlanji,Tah: Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.                                                                          ….. Respondent. 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Mr. Ejaz Khan, SPL, P.P. For the appellant.Mr. Sudeep Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent no.1.Mr. N.S.Khandewale, Advocate for respondent no.2.

          Criminal Appeal No. 171/2009

Central Bureau of Investigation,Special Crime Branch, Chennai CampO/o. SP, CBI, ACB, 3rd Floor,Block ­C, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills,Nagpur, Through PSI, CBI, Nagpur.

…....Appellant.

   .versus.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

51. Gopal Sakru Binjewar,

Aged about 23 years,Occupation: Labour.

2. Sakru Mahagu BinjewarAged about 49 years,Occupation; Labour.

3. Shatrughan Isram Dhande,Aged about 40 years,Occupation: Cultivator.

4. Vishwanath Hagru DhandeAged about 55 years,Occupation: Cultivator.

5. Ramu Mangru Dhande,Aged about 42 years,Occupation: Cultivator.

6. Jugdish Ratan Mandlekar,Aged about 51 years,Occupation: Cultivator.

7. Prabhakar Jaswant Mandlekar,aged abot 27 years,Occupation: Cultivator.

8. Shishupal Vishwanath Dhande,Aged about 23 years,Occupation: Cultivator.All residents of Village Khairlanji,Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.

                     …..Respondents.­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Mr. Ejaz Khan, SPL. P.P. for appellant.Mr. S.Jaiswal, Advocate for respondents 1,2,6 and 7.Mr. N.S.Khandewale, Advocate for respondents 3,4,5 and 8.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

6                      CORAM     :        A.P.LAVANDE & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ                          DATE OF RESERVING                 :   29.04.2010                          DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:   14.07.2010

JUDGMENT (PER A.P.LAVANDE, J)

Confirmation   Case   No.   4/2008   along   with 

connected four appeals are being disposed of by common 

Judgment since they arose out of the Judgment and order 

dated  15/24th September, 2008 passed by the Special Court 

at Bhandara in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2007 filed by 

Central Bureau of Investigation against eleven accused.

2. All the eleven accused were tried for the offences 

punishable under Sections 302, 354, 449, 201, 148 read with 

Section 149, 120­B of the Indian Penal  Code and Sections 

3(1)   (x),   3(1)   (xi),   3(2)   (v)   and   3(2)   (vi)   of   the   Scheduled 

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 

1989.  By the impugned Judgment accused nos. 1 to 3; 6 to 9 

and   11   have   been   convicted   and   sentenced   for   different 

offences and accused nos. 4,5 and 10 have been acquitted of 

all   the   offences  for   which   they   have   been   charged.   The 

details   of   conviction  and   sentences   imposed   on   accused 

nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 are as under:

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

7

     Accused               Sections                       Sentence           nos.

1 to 3, 6 to 9        302 r/w 149         Imprisonment  for  life and  and 11.                for murder          payment of fine of Rs.2000/­

            of Surekha          each i/d to undergo S.I. for       six months each.

2,3,6 and 9         302 r/w 149     Sentenced to death  i.e.            for murder     hang by neck till death and           of Sudhir     payment of fine of Rs.2000/­

    each i/d to undergo S.I. for    six months each.

1 and 11            302 r/w 149           Imprisonment  for  life and           for murder             payment of fine of Rs.2000/­         of Sudhir     each i/d to undergo S.I. for  

     six months each.

2,3 & 6 to 9       302 r/w 149     Sentenced to death  i.e.          for murder     hang by neck till death and         of Roshan     payment of fine of Rs.2000/­

    each i/d to undergo S.I. for    six months each.

1 and 11            302 r/w 149           Imprisonment  for  life  and                              for murder            payment of fine of Rs.2000/­

         of Roshan             each i/d to undergo S.I. for                         six months each.

2,3 & 6 to 9      302 r/w 149     Sentenced to death  i.e.          for murder     hang by neck till death and         of Priyanka     payment of fine of Rs.2000/­

    each i/d to undergo S.I. for    six months each.

1 and 11          302 r/w 149             Imprisonment  for  life  and                            for murder              payment of fine of Rs.2000/­

       of Priyanka    each i/d to undergo S.I. for       six months each.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

8

1 to 3 and        148 r/w 149       R.I. for three years and to6 to 9 & 11                            pay fine of Rs.1000/­ each

                          i/d to S.I. for three months       each.

3. Confirmation Case No. 4/2008 arises out of death 

sentence     imposed   on   accused   nos.   2,3,6,7,8   and   9; 

Criminal   Appeal   No.   763/2008   has   been   filed   by   original 

accused  nos.  1,2,8  and  9  challenging  the    conviction  and 

sentences   imposed  on them;  Criminal  Appeal  No.  748/08 

has been preferred by the original accused nos. 3,6,7 and 11 

challenging   the   conviction   and   sentences   imposed   on 

them;  Criminal  Appeal  No.  170/09  has  been  preferred  by 

Central  Bureau   of   Investigation   under   Section  377  of   the 

Indian Penal  Code,  aggrieved by inadequacy  of  sentences 

imposed on accused nos. 1 and 11 and  Criminal Appeal No. 

171/09   has   been   preferred   by   Central   Bureau   of 

Investigation challenging acquittal of accused nos. 1 to 3, 6 

to 9 and 11 for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)

(x),  3(1)(xi),  3(2)  (v)  and  3(2)  (vi)  of  the  Scheduled  Castes 

and Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention of  Atrocities)  Act,  1989. 

For the sake of convenience,  the accused shall  hereinafter 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

9be referred to as per their status before the trial court.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

Informant   Bhaiyyalal   Bhotmange   (P.W.17)   was 

residing at outskirts of  Khairlanji village called as 'Toli' with 

his wife  Surekha and sons Sudhir and Roshan and daughter 

Priyanka.   They   belong   to   Mahar   caste   (scheduled   caste). 

Sidharth   Gajbhiye   (P.W.11)   Police   Patil   of   nearby   village 

Dhusala is their family friend.

5. On   13.9.2006   Siddharth   Gajbhiye   came   to   the 

house  of  Bhaiyyalal  Bhotmange  in the morning.    Accused 

No. 2 Sakru   met Siddharth Gajbhiye and demanded back 

wages  on  account  of  which   there  was  a  dispute  between 

them.   Sidharth   slapped   Sakru.     On   the   very   day   in   the 

evening when Sidharth was proceedings towards Kandri he 

was   assaulted   by   some   villagers.  On  hearing   the   news   of 

assault Surekha Bhotmange and Priyanka rushed there and 

brought Sidharth   to their house.    After two days Sidharth 

lodged   report   at   Andhalgaon   Police   Station   pursuant   to 

which Crime No. 52/06 was registered.  Surekha Bhotmange 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

10gave   statement   identifying   the   persons/   accused   who 

assaulted   Siddharth   pursuant   to   which   attackers   were 

arrested.   On 29.9.2006 all the accused in Crime No. 52/06 

were released  on bail.

6. On 29.9.2006 at about 6 to 6.30 p.m.   a group of 

about   40   persons   surrounded   the   house   of   Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange and some of them shouted that they have been 

falsely   implicated    by Surekha.    They  also  gave  abuses  of 

their   caste.   On   seeing   that   Bhaiyalal   ran   away   from   the 

house.  Surekha  came out of  her house and set fire to her 

cattle   shed   probably     to   ward   off   the   attackers.     Then 

Surekha tried to run away but she was chased and caught by 

the accused.    She was assaulted by giving blows  of  sticks, 

bicycle   chains   and   also   by   giving   kicks   and   fist   blows. 

Thereafter, Sudhir tried to run away but he was also chased 

by   the   accused   and   he   was   assaulted   by   giving   blows   of 

sticks, bicycle chains and by giving kicks and fist blows.  His 

body   was   dragged   near   the   body   of   Surekha   who   was 

already   dead.   All   the   accused   then   searched   for   other 

members of the family of Bhaiyalal. They traced Roshan in 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

11nearby   cattle   shed.   Roshan   freed   himself   and   ran   away 

towards the hand pump.   All the accused chased him and 

caught  him   near  hand  pump  where   he   was   assaulted   by 

giving     blows of sticks,  bicycle chains and by giving kicks 

and fist blows.   Thereafter,  accused   caught Priyanka near 

the hand pump and all the accused beat her by giving blows 

in the same  manner.    On account  of  assault,  Roshan and 

Priyanka died. Thereafter, all the accused brought four dead 

bodies at one place and threatened others not to tell about 

the  incident to any one and further threatened that in case 

the   incident   is   disclosed   they   would   also   meet   with   the 

same fate. Thereafter, accused brought one bullock cart and 

took four dead bodies towards the village Kandri and then 

dropped them in a canal.

6A. Bhaiyyalal   Bhotmange   after   running   away   from 

his   house   went   to   the   house   of   Siddharth   Gajbhiye   at 

Dhusala and told him about the incident.  Siddharth made a 

phone   call   to   Andhalgaon   Police   Station.   Thereafter, 

Bhaiyalal,   accompanied   by   son   of   Siddharth,   went   to 

Andhalgaon Police Station but did not lodge report since he 

was frightened.   On the next day morning Bhaiyyalal went 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

12to search his family members but he could not trace them 

out.  Then he went to Andhalgaon Police station and lodged 

report.   By   this   time,   the  police  had  received   information 

that the dead body of a girl with a tatoo mark 'Priyanka' on 

the  hand was found in a canal which was fished out. Police 

called  Bhaiyalal  at  Mohadi  hospital  where  the  dead  body 

was taken. Bhaiyalal  identified the dead body of Priyanka. 

On the same day at about  8.00 p.m.  crime was registered 

under   Sections   147,   148,   149,   302   and   201   of   the   Indian 

Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste 

and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

7. On 1.10.2006 the Sub Divisional Police Officer Mr. 

Susatkar arrested about eighteen persons on suspicion.  On 

the same day three more dead bodies i.e. of Surekha, Sudhir 

and Roshan Bhotmange  were also found.  Police  prepared 

inquest  panchanamas   of these dead bodies and the dead 

bodies were sent for post mortem.   Since the investigation 

was   not   being   carried   out   on   proper   lines,   the   State 

Government handed over the investigation of the crime to 

the State C.I.D..  However, not much progress was made in 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

13the investigation.

8. By   notification   dated   20.11.2006   the   State   of 

Maharashtra requested the Union of India to investigate the 

crime   through   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation.   Central 

Bureau of Investigation started investigation by registering 

the crime  at  Special  Crime  Branch  of  C.B.I.  Chennai  vide 

No.  11­S­2006.    Thereafter,   investigation  was  taken up by 

SDPO of CBI Shri  N.K.Sharma  which was followed by Dy. 

S.P.  CBI  Shri  Nandkumar.     In the course  of   investigation, 

CBI recorded statements of several  witnesses.    CBI sought 

discharge  of   thirty  six  accused  who  were  suspected  to be 

involved   in   the   crime   which   was   granted   by   the   learned 

Magistrate.     Statements of several witnesses were also got 

recorded by the Magistrate  in terms of  Section 164 of  the 

Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.       After   completion   of   the 

investigation,   CBI   submitted   charge   sheet   against   eleven 

accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   147, 

148,   149,   120­B   and   302   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and 

offences  under  The  Scheduled  Castes  and The  Scheduled 

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)  Act.    The learned Judicial 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:42 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

14Magistrate, First Class, Mohadi committed case to the court 

of Sessions.   Thereafter, the case was transferred to Special 

Court for trial. The Special Court  framed charge against all 

the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 

148,  149,  354,  201 read with Section 149 and 120­B of the 

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) and 

Section   3(2)(v)   and   3(2)(vi)   of   Scheduled   Castes   and 

Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act.     The 

accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be 

tried.  The defence of the accused was of total denial and of 

false implication.

9. In the course  of  trial,   the  prosecution  examined 

thirty   six   witnesses   and   produced   several   documents   to 

bring home the charge to the accused.  The accused did not 

lead   any   defence   evidence.   The   learned   trial   Judge   upon 

appreciation   of   the   evidence   led   by   the   prosecution 

convicted and sentenced the accused nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 

11 for different offences  as stated above.   The learned trial 

Court   acquitted   the   accused   nos.   4,5   and   10   of   all   the 

offences   for   which   they   were   charged.   The   learned   trial 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

15Judge awarded the death sentence to accused nos. 2,3,6, 7,8 

and 9.

10. We  heard  at   length  Mr.  Sudeep  Jaiswal,   learned 

counsel appearing on behalf of accused nos. 1,2,6 and 7, Mr. 

N.S.Khandewale, learned counsel for the accused nos. 3,6,7 

and   11   and   Mr.   Ejaz   Khan,   learned   Special   Public 

Prosecutor   on   behalf   of   the   CBI.     With   the   assistance   of 

learned counsel for the accused and learned Special P.P. we 

perused the record.  

11. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel  for the accused nos. 

1,2,6 and 7 submitted that  the conviction of  accused nos. 

1,2 6 and 7 and sentences imposed on them are liable to be 

set aside, inter alia, on the following grounds.

i)               The evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. 

Mukesh   Aasaram   Pusam(   P.W.2);   Suresh 

Shalikram   Khandate   (P.W.3),   Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange   (P.W.17),     Dinesh   Dhande 

(P.W.19)     and   Premlal   Walke   (P.W.22)   does 

not inspire confidence and as such is liable to 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

16be rejected.

ii) There   has   been   inordinate   and 

unexplained   delay   in   recording   the 

statements of the witnesses more particularly 

of   the   eye   witnesses   which   is   fatal   to   the 

prosecution case.

iii)   The   evidence   of   the   so   called   eye 

witnesses   is   full   of   contradictions   and 

omissions seriously affecting their credibility.

iv) Extra judicial confessions alleged to 

have been made by the accused nos. 2 and 8 

to P.W.10 Anil Lede and P.W.16 Sunil Lede do 

not inspire confidence.

v)   The   prosecution   evidence   is 

tainted   and   is   of   only   interested   witnesses 

and, therefore, is liable to be rejected.

vi) The medical evidence is at variance 

with     ocular   testimony   and,   therefore,   no 

reliance  can be placed on the eye witnesses 

examined by the prosecution.

vii) The   death   sentence   awarded   to 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

17accused   nos.   2,6   and   7   is   not   warranted 

inasmuch  as the case  can not  be termed  as 

rarest  of   rare  case  warranting   imposition  of 

death sentence.

In support  of his submissions,  Mr.  Jaiswal  relied 

upon the following authorities.

i)          State of M.P.  vs. Kriparam                  (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases, 

       675.

ii)       State of Punjab vs.Hardam Singh & others.

      (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases,  679.

iii)      Rangrao Mithuji Kalokar & ors.   vs. State of    Maharashtra.

  2006 ALL MR(CRI) NOC 90.

iv)     State of Maharashtra  vs.  Ahmed Gulam    Nabi Shaikh & ors.

      1996(4)CRIMES 352.

v)       Kikar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426.

vi)       State of  Andhra Pradesh vs.  Punati  Ramulu and others.

   AIR 1993 SC 2644

vii) Mohinder Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab and others.

   2003 ALL MR(CRI) 2330

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

18viii) State of U.P. vs. Mundrika & 

others.                    I(2001)CCR 80SC

ix)       Sirima Narashimha Rao & others vs.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh

   2010 (1)BCR 802.

x)       Shankar Lal vs. State of Haryana      AIR 1998 CRLJ  4592

xi)                            Tarseem Kumar  vs. The Delhi    Administration

  AIR 1994 SC 2585

xii) Dilavar Hussain and others. vs.                    State of Gujrat and another.                    1991(1) SCC 253

xiii) Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala                    AIR 1993 SC 1892

xiv) Omwati vs. Mahendra Singh &    others.

                    (1) 1998 CCR 130 SWC

xv) Tahsildar Singh and another vs.  State of U.P.

   AIR 1959 SC 1012.  

12. Mr.   Khandewale,   learned   counsel   appearing   for 

accused nos. 2,6,7 and 11 assailed conviction and sentences 

imposed   on   these   accused,   inter   alia,   on   the   following 

grounds.

i)       There   is   unexplained   and 

inordinate delay of 24 to 26 hours in lodging 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

19F.I.R.     by   Bhaiyyalal   Bhotmange(P.W.17) 

which   creates   serious   doubt   about 

prosecution case.

ii) F.I.R.   (Exh.   133)   is   full   of 

discrepancies and the written F.I.R. (Exh. 134) 

does not correspondence with the oral report 

lodged by P.W.17 Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange and 

the   same   has   been   fabricated   by   the 

investigation   officer   Siddeshwar   Bharne 

(P.W.23).

iii) The evidence of eye witnesses is full 

of material contradictions and omissions and 

tenor   of   their   evidence   discloses   that   they 

were   not   the   real   eye   witnesses   to   the 

incident. 

iv) There has been inordinate delay in 

recording   the   statements   of   the   witnesses, 

more   particularly   the   eye   witnesses   which 

throws   serious   doubt   on   the   prosecution 

case.

v) The   extra   judicial   confessions 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

20alleged to have been made by accused nos. 2 

and 8 to P.W.10 Anil Lede, P.W.15 Gopichan 

Mohature   and   P.W.16   Sunil   Lede   do   not 

inspire confidence since both these witnesses 

were   induced   to   be   the   witnesses   to   the 

alleged extra judicial confessions.

vi)         The medical evidence tendered by the 

prosecution   thorough   P.W.14   Dr.   Avinash 

Shende  is  at  variance  with  ocular  testimony 

inasmuch   as   he   has   clearly   admitted   that 

incise wounds found on the deceased could 

be caused only by sharp edged weapon which 

is contrary to the prosecution case.

vii) The medical evidence clearly belies 

evidence of the eye witnesses.

viii) The prosecution has chosen not to 

show  weapons  i.e.  sticks  and  bicycle  chains 

seized during the investigation to Dr. Avinash 

Shende   (P.W.14)   in   order   to   establish   that 

these   weapons   could   have   caused   injuries 

found on the deceased.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

21ix) The entire investigation carried out 

by the CBI is tainted and with a view to falsely 

implicate eleven accused in the crime.

x) The   death   sentence   awarded   to 

accused nos. 3,6 and 7 is not warranted since 

the case can not be termed as rarest of rare.

In support  of  his  submissions,  Mr.  Khandewale, 

placed reliance on the following judgments.

i) Motilal   and   another   vs.   State   of  Rajasthan.

   (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 454.

ii)               State of Punjab vs. Avtar Singh                                                (2009) 10 SCC 800

iii) State of Andhra Pradesh                    (2008) 14 SCALE 118.

iv) Sau.   Panchafula   Ramchandra  Khadse  &   another     vs.   State   of  Maharashtra

                                                2008 ALL MR (Cri.) 375                                                

v) Ramesh  Baburao  Devaskar  & ors.  vs. State of Maharashtra

   2008 ALL MR (CRI) 293 (SC).

vi) Shankarlal vs. State of Rajasthan                      AIR 2004 SC 3559.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

22vii)                 State of Rajasthan  vs. Sheo Singh 

     & others.                   AIR 2003 SC 1783

viii)                 Ashraf Hussain Shaj  vs. State of        Maharashtra

                    1996 CRLJ 3147.

ix)                     Pannayar vs. State of Tamil Nadu                    ((2009)9 SCC 152).

x)                  Pratap Singh and another vs. State of M.P..

                               2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases,  624.

xi)   State  of  Rajasthan  vs.  Bhanwar  Singh   & others.

                    2004(5) SCALE 711.

xii) Badam Singh vs. State of M.P.              (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases,792.

                            xiii)                  State Inspector of Police,               Vishakhapatnam vs. Surya               Sankaram Karri.

                                                  (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 172.

                           xiv)                   Ashish Batham vs. State of M.P.                                                     AIR 2002 Supreme Court, 3206.

                           xv)                  Shrishti Narain Jha vs. Bindeshwar             Jha and others.

                                                   (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases,457.

                           xvi)                 State of Maharashtra vs. Pralhad               Champatrao Deshbhratar and  

            others.                                                    2005(1) MHLJ 784

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

23xvii) State   of   M.P.   vs.   Bacchudas   @ 

Balram & others.                (2007)9 Supreme Court Cases, 135.

xviii) Lakhwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab

   AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2577.

                             xix)                  Brijpal Singh vs. State of M.P.              2003 AIR SCW 2480.

                              xx)               State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S.               Swarnalatha and others.

   IV(2009) CCR 286 (SC).

•                 xxi)                Dhanapal vs. State by Public  Prosecutor ,    Madras

                               IV(2009) CCR 243(SC)

                           xxii)              Jai Singh & others. vs. The State of            Karnataka

                                                  2007(5)SCAL 658.

xxiii) Vijaybhai   Bhanabhai   Patel   vs.        Navnitbhai   Nathubhai   Patel   and  other,

                    (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 583.

xxiv) Babu and others v. State of U.P.                    AIR 1983 Supreme Court 308.

xxv) Sunil   Chokhoba   Shambarkar   &  another vs. State of Maharashtra

  2008 ALL MR (Cri) 360

xxvi) State of Rajashthan  vs. Netrapal & others.

                                     (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 45.

          xxvii)               Haru Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal                                     IV(2009)CCR 7 (SC).

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

24               xxviii)          Sushil Kumar vs. State of Punjab                                     IV(2009) CCR 193 (SC).  

                 xxix)           Lehna vs. Stateof Haryana                                     (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 76.

                             xxx)              Jagjit Singh alias Jagga vs. State of Punjab

                                       (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 689.

              xxxi)               Dhananjay Shanker Shetty vs. State of  Maharashtra

                                AIR 2002 Supreme Court, 2787.

             xxxii)        Ramdas  And  others    vs.  State  of  Maharashtra

                                       (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 170

13. Mr.   Khan,   learned   Special   Public   Prosecutor 

appearing   on   behalf   of   the   CBI   while   supporting   the 

impugned Judgment and order submitted that accused nos. 

1 and 11 ought to have been awarded death sentence and 

the reasons given by the learned trial court  for awarding life 

imprisonment are patently unsustainable in law. He further 

submitted that the acquittal of the accused nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 9 

and 11 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)

(xi)   and   3(2)(v)   and   (vi)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and 

Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention  of   Atrocities   )   Act,   1989     is 

patently unsustainable in law inasmuch as the prosecution 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

25has clearly established the ingredients of the said offences 

against   the   accused.   Therefore,   the   acquittal   of   the   said 

accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under   the   said 

provisions is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.  He 

further  submitted   that   the   investigation   of   the  crime   has 

been  carried    out  by  CBI  by   following  scientific  methods 

and only after verifying the complicity of the accused, CBI 

filed   the   charge   sheet   against   the   accused.     He   further 

submitted   that   the   evidence   of   the   eye   witnesses   P.W.2 

Mukesh   Pusam,   P.W.3   Suresh   Khandate,   P.W.19   Dinesh 

Dhande and P.W.22 Premlal Walke  inspire confidence and 

is in consonance with their statements before the CBI and 

the Magistrate and, therefore, there is absolutely no reason 

to  discard   their  evidence.    He   further  submitted   that   the 

delay in lodging report by P.W. 17 Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange  is 

not   fatal   inasmuch   as   he   was   frightened   after   seeing   the 

mob near his house which made him to run away from the 

spot.  He further submitted that the evidence of  the hostile 

witness   P.W.20   Mahadeo   Zanzad   to   some   extent 

corroborates   the   version   of   the   other   eye   witnesses   and, 

therefore, to that extent his evidence has to be considered, 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

26more particularly having regard to the fact that the principle 

of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus  is not applicable in India. 

He further  submitted that  extra judicial  confessions made 

by  the  accused  nos.  2  and  8   to  P.W.10  Anil  Lede,  P.W.15 

Gopichand   Mohature   and   P.W.16   Sunil   Lede   inspire 

confidence and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve 

their extra judicial confessions.   He further submitted that 

the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the eye 

witnesses are on minor aspects which do not discredit their 

entire   testimony.     He   ,   therefore,   submitted     that   the 

Judgment  and Order  passed  by the   learned  trial  court  be 

modified by convicting accused nos. 1,2,3,4,6 to 9 and 11 for 

the offence  punishable  under  Section  3(1)(x),  3(1)(xi)  and 

3(2)(v) and (vi) of the S.C. S.T.  Act and the accused nos. 1 

and 11 be awarded death sentence.  

In   support   of   his   submission,   Mr.   Khan   relied 

upon the following judgments;

      i)  Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and others.

   AIR 2009 Supreme Court, 1973

ii)         Swaran Singh and others vs. State        2008 CRI L.J. 4369.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

27iii)        Bachcha vs. State of U.P.

        2008 CRI.L.J. 483.

iv)        Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala       2004 CRI. L.J. 605.

v)         Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar  .v.         State of Maharashtra.        AIR 2009 Supreme Court, 1692.

vi)         Mohd. Azad @ Samin v. State of         West Bengal.        AIR 2009 Supreme Court, 1307.

vii) Gura Singh vs. State of                     Rajashthan                           (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases,    

205.

viii) Kailash vs. State of M.P.                   (2006)11 Supreme Court Cases                    420.

ix)               Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab              (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 315.           

x)               State of U.P. vs. Premi & others.              (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases,12.            

xi)               State of Rajasthan  vs. Laxman              Singh and others.              (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 65.                 

13A. In   rejoinder,   Mr.   Jaiswal   and   Mr.   Khandewale 

submitted   that   the   offences   under   The   Scheduled   Castes 

and  Scheduled  Tribes   (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act,  1989 

are   not   made   out   against   the   accused.   Learned   counsel 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

28further submitted that accused nos. 1 and 11 do not deserve 

death sentence. Learned counsel further submitted that not 

only accused nos. 1 and 11 do not deserve death sentence 

but other accused who have been sentenced to death also 

do not  deserve  death  sentence  since  the  case  can not  be 

termed as rarest of rare case.

14. We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   and 

perused the record and the judgments  relied upon by the 

learned counsel for the accused and learned Spl. P.P..

15. Before   we   analysis   the   evidence   of   the   eye 

witnesses we would like to deal with the medical evidence 

tendered   by   the   prosecution   to   prove   that   all   the   four 

deceased   viz.   Priyanka   Bhaiyalal   Bhotmange,   Roshan 

Bhaiyalal   Bhotmange,   Sudhir   Bhaiyalal   Bhotmange     and 

Surekha  Bhaiyalal  Bhotmange  died homicidal  death.    The 

prosecution   has   examined   Dr.   Avinash   John   Shende 

(P.W.14)­   Medical   Officer   who   at   the   relevant   time   was 

posted at Sihora Rural Hospital and was deputed at Mohadi 

Rural Hospital for the period April to November, 2006.   He 

deposed   that   he   had   conducted   about     20   to   25   post 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

29mortems.    On 30.9.2006 dead body of    Priyanka  Bhaiyalal 

Bhotmange     was   referred   to   him   for   post   mortem.     He 

conducted the post mortem on the same day.  He found the 

following external injuries.

i)       Incised would over the scalp at the left  tempero 

occipital     region   with   fracture   of   tempero   occipital 

bone 5 (length) x 2 (breadth) x 1 (depth) cm. In size.

ii)    Incised wound over the right parietal bone  3 x 1 x 

0.5 c.m.

iii)  Marks of strips of chain over the middle half of the 

right  thigh  extending  from  the  lateral  surface  to  the 

frontal aspect horizontally  15 x 1 cm..

iv)    Marks of signs of chain over the right middle half 

of the right thigh above the injury No. 3 parallel to the 

injury No. 3 having size 10 x 1 cm..

v)      Marks of strips of chain over the left thigh lower 

1/3 frontal aspect 3 x 1 cm. In size.

vi)     Contusion over mandible middle part  3 x 1 cm. 

In size.

vii)      Contusion over the left hand 4 x 4 cm. In size.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

30viii)         Contusion all over the left forearm with collies 

fracture left side.

ix)               Marks and strips of chain extending from the 

above  of  the mid clavicular  line  to the  lower  end of 

stern ­um on chest about 15 x 1 cm..

x)               Contusion over the chest, left side at the level 

10th to 12th rib about 3 x 2 cm. In size.

xi)          Contusions over the back of chest right having 

size 7 x 5 cm. At the level of scapula.

         

15A.          All those injuries were ante mortem.  Injury Nos. 1 

and 2 were on vital parts of that dead­body. These injuries 

No.   1   and   2   were   sufficient   in   ordinary   course   nature   to 

cause   death.   Injuries   nos.   3,4,   5   and   9   could   have   been 

caused by giving blows of cycle chain.  Rest of the injuries 

could have been caused by hard and blunt object.

15B. On internal examination of dead body, he found 

the following injuries.

i)     There   was   haemorrhage   on   left   tempero 

occipital region which was beneath the external 

injury no. 1.

ii)         There   was   haemorrhage   at   right   parital 

region which  was beneath external injury no.2.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

31iii)    Fracture of tempero occipital bone.

iv)    Fracture of frontal bone.

15C. Internal   injuries   nos.   3   and   4   were   also 

corresponding   to   external   injuries   no.   1   and   2.   Probable 

cause of death was due to intracranial haemorrhage due to 

head   injury.     He   had   issued   post   mortem   Exh.   120.     He 

confirmed   its   contents   as   correct   and   identified   his 

signature on the same.

15D. He   further   deposed   that   on   1.10.2006   the   dead 

body of Roshan Bhaiyalal Bhotmange   was referred to him 

for post mortem which was conducted by him on the same 

day.   On   external   examination   he   found   the   following 

injuries.

i)            Contusion over the middle  half  of the right leg 3 x 2 cm in size caused by hard and rough object.

ii)         Contusion over the right medial surface of the ankle  2 x 2 cm in size.

iii)         Contusion   over   the   right   side   of   the middle chest  5 x 3 cm in size.

iv)       Contusion over the right side abdomen at midelavicular  line 3 x 2 cm. In size.

v)             Lacerated wound over the floor of the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

32right eye  2x2x1 cm deep with fracture floor of the right eye.

vi)     Contusion over the right eye.

vii)     Mouth   is   damaged   teeth   in   tact   with fracture midline of the mandible at chin.  

viii)     Lacerated wound over the frontal bone right   side     2   x   0.5   x   3   cm.   Insize   having fracture at the frontal bone.

ix)        Lacerated wound on the back of head 6 x 1 x 1 cm extending from the right siide to left side of occipital bone.

x)         Lacerated  wound  over  and above,  the right ear on the temporal bone   2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm..

15E.             All these injuries  were ante mortem. Out of these 

injuries, injuries Nos. 8,9 and 10 were on the vital parts of 

body and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to 

cause   death.   All   the   injuries   could   have   been   caused   by 

hard and blunt  object  and were sufficient  in the ordinary 

course of nature to cause death.

            On   internal   examination   of   dead   body   of   Roshan 

Bhotmange he found the following injury.

i)         Haemorrhage   under   the   scalp   at   right frontal  bone  beneath  external   injury  no.  8.  

15F. The   probable   cause   of   death   of   Roshan 

Bhotmange   was   due   to   intracranial   haemorrhage   due   to 

head   injury.     Accordingly,   he   issued   post   mortem   report 

Exh.   121.   He   identified   his   signature   on   the   same   and 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

33confirmed its contents as true.

16. On   1.10.2006   dead   body   of   Sudhir   Bhaiyalal 

Bhotmange   was   brought   to   him   for   post   mortem.   He 

conducted   post   mortem   and   on   external   examination   he 

found the following injuries.

i)      Abrasion over the right knee, a)  5 x 2 cm. In size; b)  2 x 2 cm in size over patella.

ii)      Contusion over the shin of right tibia  8 x w cm in size lateral surface.

iii)    Contusion over the chest  10 x 5 cm over left   side   from   the   medial   sternal   end   to midclavicular line.

iv)     Contusion   over   the   left   medial   half forearm   with   swelling   with   crepitus   with fracture middle half of ulna.

v)      Contusion over the right lower chest 3 x 2 cm.

vi)       Abrasion over the left knee 4 x 1 cm. In size over patella.

vii)    Abrasion over the ankle lateral surface a) 3 x 2 cm. b) 2 x 1 cm right side.

viii)    Contusion  over  the  left  eye  which  was swollen.

ix)     Lacerated   wound   over   the   left   parietal bone  4 x 1 x 0.5 cm in size.

x)     Lacerated wound over the lateral surface of left eye  3 x 0.5 x 1 cm. in size.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

34

xi)     Lacerated   wound   over   the   right   frontal region  3 x 1 x 1 cm. in size.

xii)   Lacerated wound over the right parietal bone 1x 1x 1 cm. in size.

xiii)  Lacerated wound over and above te right ear at the region of right temporal   1 x 1 x 1 cm. in size.

xiv)   Lacerated wound over the back of head at the occipital region  4 x 2 x 1 cm. in size.

xv)    Fracture of vault of scull extending from the   lateral   canthus   of   left   eye   to   the midparietal suture about 15 cm size.

        All these injuries were ante mortem.  Injuries nos. 9 and 

11 to 15 were on the vital parts of body and were sufficient 

in   the   ordinary   course   of   nature   to     cause   death.   The 

injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object.

                   On internal  examination  of  dead  body  of  Sudhir 

Bhotmange, he found haemorrhage under scalp present at 

left  front  to parietal  region which corresponds  to external 

injury no. 15.

The probable cause of death of Sudhir was due to 

intracranial haemorrhage  due to head injury.  Accordingly, 

he   issued   post   mortem  note  Exh.   122.    He  confirmed   its 

contents as true and  identified his signature on the same. 

16A. On   1.10.2006   dead   body   of   Surekha   Bhaiyalal 

Bhotmange  was  brought   to  him  for  post  mortem  and  he 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

35conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Surekha 

Bhaiyalal   Bhotmange   and   on   external   examination   he 

found the following injuries;

i)     Incised   wound   over   the   scalp   extending from   left   parietal   bone   to   the   frontal   bone right side with expose of the scull parts 8 x 7 m 0.5 cm. In size.

ii)  Incised wound left temporal side obliquely for 4” x 0.5 in size.

iii)      Incised wound right lateral side, shin of tibia upper 1/3, 5 x 3 x 3.5 cm in size.

iv)     Incised wound over the face below right eye  2 cm below  1 x 1 x 0.5 cm in size.

v)     Incised wound over the right temporal 3 x 2 x 1 cm in size.

vi)        Contusion  over  the middle  half  of  the lower leg left side with fracture tibia fibula.

vii)     Contusion over the left knee joint   5 x 2 cm. in size with fracture left knee joint.

viii)  Incised wound over the base of the right knee with fracture base of phalanx   1 x 1 x 1 cm.

ix)     Contusion   over   the   right   wrist   having fracture coll'es right.

x)       Contusion   over   the   right   lower   1/3   of thigh frontal aspect 5 x 3.

xi)      Marks  of  strips  of  chain  over   the  right lateral surface of thigh to frontal thigh 15 x 1 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

36cm. with contusion of the part.

xii)    Marks of strips of chain over the left side of the chest above the left breast 10 x 1 cm.

xiii)     Contusion over the right middle half of lower leg  3 x 2 cm in size.

xiv)   Contusion over the left thigh middle half of the frontal aspect  3 x 2 cm in size.

xv)           Abrasion over the lower 1/3 of the left leg 2 x 1 cm. in size.

xvi)     Abrasion over the lower 1/3 of right leg 3  x 2 cm in size.

16B. All these injuries were ante mortem. Injuries nos. 

1 to 5 were on the vital parts of the body and were sufficient 

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.  Injuries  1 

to  10  and  13   to  16  could  have   been  caused  by   hard  and 

blunt object.  Injury nos. 11 and 12 could have been caused 

by giving blows of metal chain.

16C. On internal  examination  he found the following injuries;

i)     Haemorrhage   at   left   temporal   occipital bone   which   corresponds   to   external   injury no.1.

ii)   Haemorrhage   at   right   temporal   bone, which corresponds to external injury no. 5.

iii)   Fracture   at   left   tempero   occipital   bone, which corresponds  to injury no.1.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

37

iv)  Fracture on right frontal bone, which also corresponds to injury no.1.

v)   Fracture   at   right   temporal   bone   which corresponds to injury no.5.

Probable   cause   of   death   of   Surekha 

Bhotmange   was   due   to   intracranial 

haemorrhage   due   to   head   injuries. 

Accordingly,   he   issued   poste   mortem   note 

Exh.  123.    He confirmed its contents  as true 

and he identified his signature on the same. 

16D. The witness further deposed that in all four dead 

bodies, he found semi digested food at  small intestines and, 

therefore,  he  opined  that  all   these   four  persons  had  died 

after   about   5   to   6   hours   of   their   last   meals.     In   cross 

examination he admitted that  incised wounds can only be 

caused   by   sharp   edged   weapon.     He   also   admitted   that 

external injuries  1 to 5  and 8 as mentioned  in column no. 

17 of the post mortem report   of Surekha Bhotmange were 

caused  only  by  sharp  edged  weapons.    He  admitted   that 

external injuries no. 1 and 2  as mentioned in column no. 17 

of   the   post   mortem   note   of   Priyanka   Bhotmange   were 

caused  only  by  sharp  edged  weapons.    He  admitted   that 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

38injury   nos.  1   and  2   mentioned   in   column   no.  19  of   post 

mortem   note   of   Priyanka   Bhotmange   could   have   been 

caused by sharp and hard weapon.  He also admitted that 

internal  injuries  as  mention in column  no.  19 of  the post 

mortem   note   of   Surekha   Bhotmange   could   have   been 

caused by sharp and hard weapon.   However, he denied the 

suggestion   that   if   a   person   floats   in   canal   water   for 

kilometers,   then   he   can   sustain   contused   wound   due   to 

dash of the body against the canal.  He admitted that there 

could   be   contusions   and   abrasions   if   one   falls   on   hard 

rough and blunt surface.  He further deposed that the chain 

marks are also known as ligature marks but he did not find 

ligature  marks on any of  the four bodies of which he had 

performed  post  mortem.  The  witness  volunteered  that  he 

found   ligature  marks  on the dead bodies of  Surekha and 

Priyanka   Bhotmange.     He   admitted   that     he   had   not 

mentioned   in post mortem reports of Roshan and Sudhir 

Bhotmange   that     haemorrhage   which   caused   their   death 

was   intracranial   haemorrhage.     He   had   not   mentioned 

word “intracranial” because he forgot to write the same.  He 

admitted that  he knew the importance  of    writing  correct 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

39dates.  The witness admitted that the date mention at page 

no. 7 of post mortem report of Priyanka Bhotmange at its 

bottom is 30.9.2009 and there is over writing on that date. 

He denied that initially the date 1.10.2006 was written and 

thereafter   it   was   changed   to   30.9.2006.   The   witness   was 

shown the death certificate which was issued by him. The 

witness stated that the date mentioned in it at bottom was 

30.9.2006 and not 30.8.2006. This certificate was marked as 

Exh. 124.   He admitted that   there was over writing at the 

place of date of page no. 7 of both the post mortem notes of 

Roshan   and   Sudhir   Bhotmange.     He   denied   that   it   was 

earlier written as 5.10.2006. He denied that   thereafter   the 

same   was   changed   to   1.10.2006.   He   admitted   that 

provisional certificate   of death is given on the basis of the 

notes of injuries in order to enable the investigating agency 

to set the line of their  investigation.    He admitted that he 

had   prepared   final   report   of   post   mortem   after   the   dead 

bodies were handed over. He denied that on 1.10.2006   he 

had   conducted   one   post   mortem   and   then   scribed   final 

report and then conducted another post mortem.   Witness 

volunteered that he had conducted three post mortems one 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

40after   the   other   and   thereafter   scribed   final   post   mortem 

reports. He admitted that at page no. 8 of the post mortem 

of Priyanka he had corrected the earlier date of 1.10.2006 to 

30.9.2006.  He further stated that it was not necessary that in 

every   homicidal   death   viscera   should   be   preserved.     He 

denied the suggestion  that  police  had taken post  mortem 

notes from him on 5.10.2006.   He deposed that   peeling of 

skin   on   the   dead   bodies   of   Roshan,   Sudhir   and   Surekha 

Bhotmange  was sign of decomposition.

16E. The   witness   further   admitted   that   his   services 

were  terminated  with  effect   from  9.11.2006  and  the  same 

was terminated  since his  work  was not  found satisfactory 

and   that   he   was   again   given   fresh   appointment   by 

Government.  He admitted that as he had conducted those 

post mortems he was terminated alleging that his work was 

not satisfactory.    Witness  stated that decomposition starts 

after  24 hours.     In further  cross  examination  he admitted 

that   Priyanka   had   died   about   16   to   18   hours   before 

conducting post mortem.   Other three persons died about 

30 to 34 hours before conduction of their post mortem.  He 

admitted that  he has not noted the age of  injuries  on the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

41post mortem notes.    He had mentioned the time of death 

approximately.    He denied the suggestion that he had not 

conducted   post   mortem   of   those   bodies.   He   denied   the 

suggestion  that  he  had  not  conducted    any  post  mortem 

before   conducting   the   post   mortem   on   the   four   dead 

bodies.

17. The evidence of the above witness, which has not 

been shaken on material aspects in the cross examination, 

clearly   proves   that   all   the   four   deceased   viz.     Priyanka 

Bhotmange,   Roshan   Bhotmange,   Sudhir   Bhotmange   and 

Surekha   Bhotmange     died   homicidal   death.     Same   also 

stand corroborated by inquest panchanamas Exhs. 91, 86,88 

and 87 of Priyanka Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange, Sudhir 

Bhotmange   and   Surekha   Bhotmange   respectively   which 

have not been seriously disputed. Thus, the prosecution has 

been   able   to   prove   that   Priyanka   Bhotmange,   Roshan 

Bhotmange,   Sudhir   Bhotmange   and   Surekha   Bhotmange 

died  homicidal death.

18. The learned counsel for the accused and learned 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

42Special P.P. for CBI have cited several authorities in support 

of   various   propositions   regarding   delay   in   lodging     FIR, 

delay   in   recording   statement   of     a   witness,     variance 

between   medical and ocular evidence, etc..which we have 

referred  hereinabove.   We do not propose to deal with the 

authorities   individually   but   we   propose   to   mention   the 

propositions for which the authorities have been cited.

19. The   following   propositions   emerge   from   the 

authorities   cited   by   Mr.   Jaiswal,   learned   counsel   for   the 

accused nos. 1,2,6 and 7.

i)     Unexplained   delay   in   lodging   First 

Information Report is fatal to the prosecution 

case.

ii)     In case of material contradictions in the 

testimonies   of   prosecution   witnesses   the 

accused are entitled to acquittal.

iii)     Accused   can   not   be   convicted,   if   the 

prosecution evidence is tainted.

iv)   Unexplained   delay   in   recording 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

43statements of material witnesses is fatal to the 

prosecution case.

v)     If   there   is   variance   between   ocular 

testimony   and   medical   evidence   the 

prosecution case becomes doubtful.

vi)    The evidence of a witness  full of material 

contradictions   does   not   deserve   any 

credence.

  

20. The   following   propositions   emerge   from   the 

authorities  cited  by  Mr.  N.S.Khandewale,   learned  counsel 

appearing for accused nos. 2,6,7 and 11.

i) Unexplained delay in lodging First  Information 

Report is fatal to the prosecution case;

ii) When investigation is slipshod, benefit must go 

to the accused;

iii)Unexplained delay in recording statement of eye 

witnesses   creates   doubt   upon   the   prosecution 

case;

iv) Testimony of an interested witness needs careful 

and close scrutiny;

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

44v) The   evidence   of   a   witness   full   of   material 

contradictions   on   vital   aspects   has   to   be 

rejected;

vi) No interference in appeal against acquittal if two 

views are possible;

vii) Proof of motive though not necessary 

if there is direct evidence, the absence of motive 

is relevant in deciding complicity of the accused 

in the commission of  crime.

viii) Failure   to   prove   motive   assumes 

importance   if   there   are   other   circumstances 

creating doubt about prosecution case.

ix)               Death sentence is to be imposed in  rarest 

of rare case.

21.               The   following   propositions   emerge   from   the 

authorities relied upon by Mr. Khan, learned Spl. P.P..

i)             Normal discrepancies in the evidence of the 

witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case;

ii)                The  medical  evidence  need  not  always  be 

treated as sacrosanct;

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:43 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

45iii)             Maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is 

not applicable in India;

iv)                 If there is cogent and strong evidence, mere 

wrong   recording   of   time   of   lodging   of   First 

Information Report is not fatal to the prosecution 

case;

v)                                Failure to name one or more accused in 

FIR is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of eye 

witness if it is trustworthy;

vi)                            Relationship is not a factor which would 

affect the credibility of a witness;

vii) Mere  presence   in  an unlawful  assembly 

can   not   render   a   person   liable   for   the   offence 

unless he shares common object;

viii) Statement   of   a   witness   recorded   by   a 

Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be taken 

into consideration to corroborate the evidence of a 

witness in committing court.

ix)                   The evidence of a hostile witness need not 

be rejected in toto;

x)              The conviction can be based on extra judicial 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

46confession,   if   it   is   made   voluntarily,   without 

coercion, influence or pressure;

xi)             Evidentiary value of extra judicial confession 

must be judged having regard to the circumstances 

in   which   it   was   made   and   the   credibility   of   the 

witness who testifies thereto;

xii) Confession can be made even to a private 

person or a Magistrate.

22. We   now   proceed   to   analyse   the   prosecution 

evidence. 

  We shall  first  deal  with the evidence  of  the eye 

witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove complicity 

of the accused in  the crime.  The prosecution examined five 

witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses viz.  Mukesh Pusam 

(P.W.2),   Suresh   Khandate   (P.W.3),     Dinesh   Dhande 

(P.W.19),   Mahadeo   Zhanzad   (P.W.20)   and   Premlal   Walke 

(P.W.22).     We   shall   separately   deal   with   the   evidence   of 

Bhaiyalal Bhotmange (P.W.17) who lodged first information 

report.     According   to   the   prosecution   itself,   Bhaiyalal 

Bhotmange is not an eye witness to the actual  incident of 

assault   on   the   deceased   and   it   is   the   case   of   Bhaiyalal 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

47Bhotmange  himself   that  after  seeing the   crowd    near  his 

house he ran away from the spot.

23. Mukesh Pusam (P.W.2) deposed that on 29.9.2006 

at   6.00   p.m.   to   6.30   p.m.   he   was   present   in   front   side 

courtyard  of  his  house.  He heard shouts  of  accused no.  8 

Jagdish and saw that 10­12 persons were standing in front of 

the house of   Surekha.   Out of them he identified accused 

No.1 Gopal, accused no.2 Sakru, accused no.3 Shatrughna, 

accused no. 6 Vishwanath, accused no. 7 Ramu, accused no. 

8   Jagdish   and   accused   no.   9   Prabhakar.     Accused   no.   8 

Jagdish   gave   abuses   and   said   to   Surekha   Bhotmange   to 

come out of her house. Surekha then came out of her house 

and set fire to her cattle shed  to ward off the accused. Then 

she ran away towards triangular open space at  back side of 

her house.  Some accused put off  fire,  while  some   chased 

her. Accused no. 8 Jagdish caught Surekha, pulled her hair 

and dragged her to a nearby drain and dipped her in it  2­3 

times.  By  then  other  aforesaid  accused  reached  there.  All 

those seven accused then beat Surekha by fists,  kicks and 

with  chains   and   killed   her.  They   then   brought   the     dead 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

48body to Dhusala road situated nearby. Then those persons 

shouted to kill  other members of Surekha's  family.  Sudhir 

Bhotmange then came out of his house in underwear and 

ran towards Dhusala road. Then those accused chased  him 

and   thereafter   dragged   him   near   dead   body   of   Surekha. 

After that those accused found Roshan Bhotmange at cattle 

shed of  Ramdas  Khandate.  Roshan  told  them  that  he did 

not cause harm to anyone and so he should not be beaten. 

Roshan, then ran towards bore­well. Those accused chased 

him   and   caught   him   near   bore   –   well   and   beat   him   by 

bicycle chains and sticks and killed him. Thereafter,  those 

accused   searched   for   Priyanka.   This   witness   then   heard 

shouts   of   Priyanka   in   agony   of   being   killed.   Thereafter, 

accused No. 3 Shatrughna and accused no. 7 Ramu dragged 

dead   body   of   Roshan   while   accused   no.   2   Sakru   and 

accused no.8 Jagdish dragged dead body of Priyanka near 

other two dead bodies. Thereafter, accused no. 7 Ramu and 

accused no. 9 Prabhakar shouted that  if anyone would  tell 

anything against them then they would meet the same fate 

as those four persons.  Thereafter,  this witness came to his 

house   on   being   frightened.   After   some   time   he   saw   that 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

49accused  no.  8   Jagdish  was  riding  a  bullock­cart   in  which 

those   dead  bodies  were  kept.  He  also  saw  accused  no.  2 

Sakru, accused no. 3 Shatrughna, accused no. 7 Ramu and 

accused no. 9 Prabhakar followed that bullocks cart which 

was taken towards village Kandri. 

23A. In cross­examination he admitted that he did not 

see Sudhir,  Roshan and Priyanka being beaten and killed. 

In cross­examination it was suggested to him that on seeing 

some persons in front of the house Surekha set fire to her 

cattle shed and before that these persons were arguing with 

Surekha.     It   was   also   suggested   by   the   defence   to   the 

accused   that   when   he   heard   shouts   of   Surekha   he   was 

standing   in   front   of   his   house   as   mentioned   in   the 

statement   recorded   by   the   Judicial   Magistrate   which 

suggestion  was admitted by the witness.  The witness  also 

admitted that  there  was little  rain and no electric   light  at 

that time. The witness also admitted that he had contested 

the election and lost by two votes and at that time accused 

had helped the opponent.  The witness deposed that he first 

heard   shouts   of     Jagdish   and   then   he   looked   in   that 

direction and saw 10­12 persons were standing in front of 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

50the house of Surekha.    In cross­examination the omission 

vis­a­vis      his  statement  to  CBI,  CID and learned  Judicial 

Magistrate, First Class to the extent of presence of 10 to 12 

persons was brought  on record.    Another  omission which 

was proved by the defence is that Surekha ran towards the 

compound which was in opposite side and on the basis of 

this   defence   contended   that   it   was   not   possible   for   the 

witness   to   notice   Surekha.   It   has   also   been   brought   on 

record in the cross­examination that the witness stated to 

the learned Magistrate that at that time there was little rain 

and no electric light.  It was also brought on record that the 

witness   had   not   stated   as   to   which   of   the   accused   has 

assaulted by which weapon viz. stick, cycle chain or by kicks 

and fists blows.    Another omission vis­a­vis the statement 

made to the police which has been proved is that he did not 

state that Sudhir came out of the house in underwear and 

ran towards the road towards his field.  However,  said fact 

finds   place   in   the   statement   made   by   the   witness   under 

Section  164  Cr.P.C..   Another   omission  brought   on  record 

vis­a­vis the statement made to CBI is that he had not stated 

that accused were searching for Priyanka but this version is 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

51found   in   the   statement   made   to   the   learned   Judicial 

Magistrate,   First   Class   Mr.   Pradip     Ladekar   (P.W.35)   in 

which  the  witness  stated  that  accused  were  asking  where 

was her daughter.   Having regard to the fact that Priyanka 

was admittedly the daughter of Surekha the version of the 

witness that the accused were asking for Priyanka needs to 

be   accepted.     Another   contradiction   in   the   nature   of 

omission which has been brought on record is that  he had 

not   stated   that   accused   no.   7   Ramu   Dhande   had   also 

threatened other persons of the locality after the incident. 

Close scrutiny of the evidence of the above witness though 

discloses   that   there   are   certain   contradictions   and 

omissions vis­a­vis his earlier statements, in our considered 

opinion, same can not be said to be such as to discredit his 

version   that   he   was   present   near   his   house   which   is 

admittedly   situated   very   close   to   the   house   of     Bhaiyalal 

Bhotmange (P.W.17).

24. No doubt  if  the evidence of  a witness    discloses 

material   contradictions   and   omissions   vis­a­vis   earlier 

statement,  the testimony of such witness does not inspire 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

52confidence.  In the present case, admittedly after   the dead 

bodies  of   four  persons  were   found  and   investigation  was 

taken   up   by   the   local   police,   indiscriminate   arrests   were 

made and in all 46 persons were arrested.  According to the 

State   itself,   the   prosecution   did   not   proceed   in   the   right 

direction and,  therefore,  investigation was handed over to 

State   CID.     Even   the   State   CID   did   not   carry   out   the 

investigation in proper direction and, therefore, ultimately 

the State Government handed over the investigation to CBI 

which after  carrying out  investigation sought  discharge  of 

35 persons who were in custody which was granted by the 

learned   Magistrate.     The   people   in   Khairlanji   which   is   a 

small   village   in   Bhandara   District   were   frightened   and 

probably   on   account   of   indiscriminate   arrests   of   several 

persons from the village people were not ready to come out 

with  the  truth.     In  this   factual  background  mere  delay  in 

recording the statements of the witnesses  or disclosure  of 

certain   facts     at   a   late   stage     would   not   be   fatal   to   the 

prosecution   case.   The   delay   was   inevitable   because   the 

investigation   of   the   crime   was   handed   over   to   CBI   on 

20.11.2006   and   it   was   only   thereafter   the   CBI   could 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

53investigate the crime. Delay in recording the statements of 

the   witnesses   is   fatal   to   the   prosecution   case   if   it   is 

deliberate  with  a  view  to   falsely   implicate   the  persons   in 

commission of the crime.   In the present case, upon   close 

scrutiny of the entire evidence of  Mukesh we find it difficult 

to accept the defence version that he was not present on the 

spot on the date of the incident as deposed by him or that 

he was not an eye witness to the incident.   No doubt there 

are  some  embellishments   in the evidence  of  this  witness. 

However, they would not destroy  his entire evidence.   It is 

difficult to accept the defence version that his presence on 

the spot is doubtful in view of the statement made by Mr. 

Vinayak Susatkar (P.W.25) the first investigation officer who 

deposed that his investigation reveals that Mukesh Pusam 

left the house on 29th September, 2006. The statement of Mr. 

Vinayak   Susatkar     whose   investigation   was   found   to   be 

tainted by the State  itself   is  not  sufficient  to discredit  the 

testimony of Mukesh Pusam.  Moreover, we are also unable 

to accept  the defence  version that   it  was  not  possible  for 

him   to   see   the   incident   since   there   was     little   rain   and 

darkness.  The incident had occurred at about 6 to 6.30 p.m. 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

54on 29.9.2006 and it is difficult to hold that only because the 

witness stated that it was dark he was not in a position to 

identify the accused from a close distance.

25. Another eye witness on which prosecution relied 

upon   is     Suresh   Khandate   (P.W.3).     Suresh   who   is   also 

residing   in   the   close   vicinity   of   Bhaiyalal   Bhotmange 

deposed that he on hearing shouts   came out of the house 

and saw accused nos.  1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 in front of the 

house   of     Bhaiyalal   Bhotmange   and   some   of   them   were 

armed with sticks and some were armed with chains. They 

shouted that Mahar caste people should be ousted from the 

village and then Surekha came out of her house and set fire 

to her cattle shed. Thereafter,  accused Jagdish caught hair 

of Surekha and dipped her in the drain. Thereafter, accused 

nos.  1  to  3,  6  to  9 and accused  no.  11 beat  her  to death. 

Then Sudhir came out of his house in underwear and those 

accused chased him and caught him and beat him to death 

by   giving   him   blows   with   cycle   chains   and   sticks. 

Thereafter, accused shouted to   search for other members. 

After   that   those   accused   found   Roshan   behind   the   cattle 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

55shed of Ramdas Khandate behind the house of Bhayyalal. 

Roshan said that he should not be killed as he did not cause 

harm to any one but the accused did not pay heed. Those 

accused started beating him.  So he ran away towards hand 

pump   (bore­well).   Then   those   accused   caught   him   near 

hand pump and beat him to death. Then he heard shout of 

Priyanka in agony and thereafter accused no. 7 Ramu and 

accused   no.   3   Shatrughna   dragged   dead   body   of   Roshan 

while accused no.2 Sakru and accused no. 8 Jagdish dragged 

dead body of Priyanka where dead bodies of Surekha and 

Sudhir  were  dumped.  After  some  time a bullock  cart  was 

brought there and then the accused kept those dead bodies 

on that bullock cart. Accused no. 8 Jagdish was riding that 

bullock   cart   while   accused   no.2   Sakru,   accused   no.3 

Shatrughna   and   accused   no.   9   Prabhakar   followed   the 

bullock cart which proceeded towards Kandri.

25A. In cross­examination he stated that his house was 

in front   to  the  house  of  Bhayyalal  and  Siddharth  used  to 

visit the house of Bhayyalal since he used to treat Surekha 

as his sister.    He admitted that  he had good relation with 

Bhotmange   family   members   and   he   used   to   visit   their 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

56house.     He   denied   that   the   house   of   Mukesh   was   at   the 

distance of about 30 ft. from his house and stated that it was 

about 10 ft. away.   He also admitted that deceased Roshan 

and Sudhir were friends of his sons Mangesh and Kamal  He 

admitted   that   he   suffered   from   chickenguniya   from 

20.9.2006  and he was having severe  pain in joints  and he 

stated that he could not walk and he was taking treatment 

from   the   Doctor.   He   admitted   that   he   did   not   go   in   the 

village between the period 20.9.2006 to 5.12.2006.   He also 

stated   that   during   the   said   period   of   about   two   months 

police   neither   asked   him   anything   nor   he   told   them 

anything. He admitted that after 4­5 days of the incident 2­3 

police  outposts  were  made  but  he did  not  know  whether 

any police officer from CID used to come to the outpost. He 

admitted that he did not tell anything about incident to the 

leaders, journalists or the social workers and the reason was 

that he was suffering from illness and as such he did not call 

those persons.  However, in cross examination he admitted 

that  he had stated to CBI   about  the place  where  Roshan 

was hiding and the cowshed in the   field was not visible to 

him from the place near his house. He stated that he could 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

57not   see   Roshan   at   the   house   of   Bhotmange.   He   further 

stated that he had stated to CBI that Roshan was found at 

cowshed   which   was   at   the   place   owned   by   Ramdas.   His 

statement to CBI was correctly recorded.  Similar statement 

was   made   to   CBI   that   Roshan   ran   away   from   there   and 

these persons chased him and apprehended him near the 

hand pump and that he was beaten to death and the same 

was correctly  recorded.    He further  stated that  he did not 

state so to the learned Magistrate since he did not ask him. 

He was confronted with the statements made to Magistrate 

and  CBI  wherein   he   had  not   stated   that   Jagdish  shouted 

that other  members of the house should be searched and 

killed.     The   witness   could   not   give   any   reason   for   the 

omission.     He   also   admitted   that   he   had   not   told   the 

Magistrate that the accused found Roshan at the back side 

of  the shed of  the house of  Bhotmange.  Similarly,  he was 

confronted with the statement made to Magistrate wherein 

he had not stated that Jagdish and Vishwanath Dhande told 

that Mahar caste people should be ousted from the village 

and omission was duly proved.

25B. In   further   cross   examination   of   the   witness   the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

58following   omissions   vis­a­vis   his   statement   to   the 

Magistrate were  brought on record.

i)    That he did not tell that all the accused 

ran after Surekha;

ii)    The bullocks of bullock­cart were red in 

colour.

25C. The   witness   further   stated   that   his   statement 

before  the CBI that  dead bodies were kept in bullock cart 

and were taken away towards Kandri  village was correctly 

recorded.   He further deposed that at the time of incident 

he was not able to run, to jump and to climb.       He denied 

the   suggestion   that   he   could   not   see   the   object   at   long 

distance   because   of   pain   in   the   eyes.     He   denied   the 

suggestion that he had not seen any of the accused beating 

Bhotmange   family  members   or   that   none   of   the   accused 

took   away   the   dead   bodies   of   the   family   members   of 

Bhotmange  in the bullock  cart.  He denied  the  suggestion 

that  since  Mukesh  Pusam  who  was  also  belonging  to  the 

same caste has lost his election by two votes he had grudge 

against   all   the   accused.     He   denied   the   suggestion   that 

Bhaiyyalal   had   enticed   him   by   offering   money   and, 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

59therefore, he falsely deposed against the accused. Similarly, 

he also denied the suggestion that CBI had offered money 

and a job in the village and, therefore, he deposed against 

the accused. He denied that he was facing prosecution for 

drinking liquor.   The witness was shown one certified copy 

of the statement (Exh. 275) bearing his signature.    He was 

shown another application (Exh. 276) made by him to the 

Collector for his rehabilitation.   The witness admitted that 

he   had   applied   to   the   Collector   for   rehabilitation.     The 

witness   stated   that   he   had   brought   the   copy   of   the 

application having his signature. He produced the same at 

Exh. 278.   The witness stated that   he deposed in the court 

on   2.7.2007   and  Exh.  278   was  prepared   on   16.4.2007.  He 

further deposed that the Social Welfare Officer had shown 

to him some agricultural land which would be immersed in 

Gose Khurd Dam Water and, therefore, they did not like the 

land.  He  was  asked  by   the  Social   Welfare  Officer   to  seek 

payment  of  Rs.  10 lacks    in stead of  agricultural  land and 

then he got  prepared Exh.  277.    He further  stated that  he 

and   Mukesh   (P.W.2)   had   applied   at   the   same   time.   He 

denied   the   suggestion   that   the   CBI   proposed   for   his 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

60rehabilitation as he was witness in the case.  He denied the 

suggestion   that  he  was   induced  by  CBI  by  promising  his 

rehabilitation.     He   admitted   that   he   was   residing   at 

Khairlanji.  The  witness  admitted  that  he was given police 

protection after he complained to the Police about threats. 

In re­examination on behalf of the CBI he stated that he had 

given application for rehabilitation as he faced threats from 

the relatives of the accused and for no other reason and he 

had expressed threats to his life. 

25D. No doubt   in the  testimony  of  this  witness  there 

are   certain   contradictions   and   omissions   vis­a­vis   earlier 

statement   but   the   core   of   his   testimony   has   not   been 

shaken in the cross examination and having regard to the 

fact that his house was very close to the house of Bhaiyyalal 

it was quite natural for this witness to witness the incident 

of assault on deceased.  Insofar as the submission made by 

the learned counsel for the accused that this witness as well 

as   Mukesh   who   had   also   filed   similar   applications   for 

rehabilitation   were   induced   to   depose     by   promising   to 

provide plots is concerned,  we find merit in the submission 

of   Mr.     Ejaz   Khan   that   CBI   had   no   role   to   play   in   the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

61rehabilitation of the two witnesses or in the attempt of the 

two witnesses to get rehabilitated on the ground that they 

faced   threats   from   the   villagers.     It   was   for   the   State 

Government who had to take appropriate decision on the 

applications made by the two witnesses for rehabilitation as 

the same was   part  of  the witness  protection programme. 

Therefore, in our considered opinion, the mere fact that two 

witnesses  had asked for rehabilitation  on the ground that 

they  were   facing  threats   from  the  villagers  and  could  not 

carry out any work in the village would not be a ground to 

disbelieve their version on oath.   Suresh Khandate (P.W.3) 

though was suffering from Chicken Guniya, it is difficult to 

hold that he was not in a position to come out of his house 

and see the incident.  Testing their evidence on   the touch 

stone   of   probabilities,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion 

that, the evidence  of both the witnesses i..e Mukesh Pusam 

(P.W.2)  and   Suresh  Khandate   (P.W.3)   inspires   confidence 

and their  evidence clearly  establishes  the role of    accused 

nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 in the commission of the crime.

26. The   next   eye   witness   examined   by   the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

62prosecution is Dinesh Dhande (P.W.19).    He deposed that 

he   knew   Bhaiyyalal  Bhotmange   and   his   family  members. 

The   house   of   Bhaiyyalal   is   at   Toli   area   of   Khairlanji. 

Bhaiyyalal  was  residing  along  with  his  wife  Surekha,  sons 

Sudhir, Roshan and daughter Priyanka.  On 29.9.2006 in the 

evening he returned to his house and thereafter he went to 

the   shop   to   purchase   pan   masala.     On   the   way   back   he 

heard shouts  from  Toli  area  so he went  to that  area.    He 

stood  near  an  electric  pole  behind   the  house  of  Natthuji 

Khandate.    He saw Surekha  Bhotmange  coming  out  from 

the   back   side   of   her   house.   Vishwanath   Dhande   and 

Shatrughana   Dhande   followed   Surekha.   Vishwanath 

Dhande was possessing one stick and Shatrughana Dhande 

was  possessing  a  chain.    By   that   time  Jagdish  Mandlekar 

came   to   that   place   from   the   side   of   house   of   Suresh 

Khandate.     He   was   also   holding   one   stick.   Jagdish 

obstructed  Surekha Bhotmange near a drain.  Jagdish then 

started  beating  Surekha  Bhotmange  by using stick.    Then 

Vishvanath and Shatrughana Dhande came there from the 

back  side  portion    of  the  house  of  Bhaiyyalal  and started 

beating   Surekha.     Then   Ramu   Dhande   and   Shishupal 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

63Dhande came there from the same way Jagdish came there. 

Ramu was holding one stick and Shishupal was holding one 

chain.     Both   of   them   started   beating   Surekha.   Then 

Prabhakar Mandalekar,  Gopal Binjewar and Sakru Binjewar 

came   there   from   the   back   side   portion   of   the   house   of 

Bhaiyyalal.  Prabhakar Mandlekar and Gopal Binjewar were 

having nothing in their hands.  There was a wooden stick in 

the   hand   of   Sakru   Binjewar.   Then   Prabhakar   Mandlekar, 

Gopal   Binjewar   and   Sakru   Binjewar   started   beating 

Surekha.   Then all those persons killed Surekha by beating 

her.    He did not go to see whether she was alive or dead. 

Beating took place near a  drain and beside a cow dung pit 

situated  at the back side portion of the house of Bhaiyyalal 

towards left side.  The distance between that drain and cow 

dung pit is 3­ 4 feet.  Witness was shown the map (Exh. 54). 

Witness   pointed   out   the   place   where   Dhusala   road   and 

Kandri   road   meets.     The   witness   pointed   out   the   place 

where he stood and also the place   of beating of Surekha. 

Thereafter   he   saw     Sudhir   Bhotmange     running   towards 

Dhusala in an underwear.  Jagdish Mandalekar, Vishwanath 

Dhande,   Shishupal   Dhande,   Shatrughana   Dhande,   Ramu 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

64Dhande,  Prabhakar  Mandlekar,  Gopal  Binjewar and Sakru 

Binjewar caught Sudhir Bhotmange in front of the house of 

Krishnaji  Titirmare  and beat  him.    Sudhir  was  dragged  to 

the place where Surekha was kept.   Roshan, second son of 

Bhaiyyalal was hiding himself in a cattle shed situated at the 

back side   of their house. All those persons caught Roshan 

who  had  escaped  and  ran  towards  the  hand  pump  (bore 

well).    All  these persons caught   him near the hand pump 

and   beat   him   on   account   of   which   Roshan   fell   down. 

Witness  claimed that  he did no go to see whether  he was 

alive or dead.  Priyanka, daughter of Bhaiyyalal  was hiding 

in   a  cattle  shed  situated   beside   the   hand  pump.     All   the 

above referred persons brought her out of that cattle shed 

and assaulted her by giving blows of sticks, chains and by 

giving fist and kick blows.   Priyanka was   wearing a school 

uniform.  The witness claimed that he saw all those persons 

dragging Roshan   and Priyanka to the place where Sudhir 

and Surekha were kept.  Sudhir and Roshan were beaten by 

sticks, chains, fists and kicks.

26A. When the incident was going on, 30 to 40 persons 

surrounded  the house of  Bhaiyyalal.  Some  persons out  of 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

65those persons who were beating, intermittently were telling 

that if some one would tell their names then  he will be also 

beaten like them. Thereafter, he went to his house as he was 

frightened.     Witness   further   deposed   that   Bhaiyyalal 

belongs to Mahar caste.  Witness claimed that at the time of 

incident   other   persons   were   beating   and   shouting 

“Maharana Mara” (beat  Mahar caste people).  The witness 

identified the persons present in the court as assailants and 

stated that he knew them as they were his co­villagers.

26B. In   cross­examination   on   behalf   of   the   accused 

nos.   3   to   7   and   11,   the   witness   stated   that   his   house   is 

situated about  500 to 600 meters  away from the house  of 

Bhaiyyalal   and   his   field   is   besides   Dhusala   Road   at   the 

distance   of   about   1   k.m..     He   used   to   go   to   field   in   the 

morning and return in the evening   some times early and 

some  times late.    He further  stated that  he did not  know 

Rajendra   Gajbhiye   but   he   knew   Sidhharth   Gajbhiye   who 

was frequently  visiting  the house  of  Bhaiyyalal.  Sidhharth 

Gajbhiye   is the Police Patil  of village Dhusala.    He stated 

that he did not know whether Khairlanji people were afraid 

of   Sidhharth   Gajbhiye   because   he   was   a   goonda.   The 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

66witness claimed that he has not seen the incident of beating 

Sidhharth. He claimed that he had good relations with the 

family of Bhaiyyalal  but he was not on visiting terms with 

them.,     Witness   further   admitted   that   in   the   said   crime 

about 40 to 50 persons were arrested including his father. 

He did not remember whether his statement was recorded 

by police after arrest of his father but he admitted that CBI 

recorded his statement on 9.12.2006 when his father was in 

jail. He further stated that when his statement was recorded 

by the Magistrate  his   father  was  in  jail.  Witness  admitted 

that  he was taken to  jail     four  times  for     identification  of 

attackers.     The   witness   candidly   admitted   that   since   his 

father was in jail he did not identify any of the accused. He 

admitted that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate 

and that his father was released after CBI filed the charge 

sheet. Witness denied that CBI assured him that his father 

would be released after 90 days and further assured that  if 

he   gave     statement   before       the   CBI,   then   CBI   would 

discharge  his   father.    He  admitted  that  he had stated the 

police that he had returned from the field at about 6.30 p.m. 

on the date  of   incident.  Witness  was  confronted  with the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

67police   statement   when   it   was   so   recorded   to   which   the 

witness stated that it was not correctly recorded. He had not 

told the police on 29.10.2006 as to which  of the accused was 

holding  that  weapon.    He could  not  give  any reason  why 

this was not found in his police statement.

26C. The  witness  admitted  that  beyond  the  house  of 

Bhaiyyalal there were   heaps of cow dung  and in that area 

grass grows in winter season but he denied that the grass 

and   plants     grow   up   to   height   of   3   to   4   feet.     Witness 

admitted   that     the  Police   had  provided  security   guard   to 

him   for   24   hours.     The   witness   further   admitted   that 

amongst 40 encircling the house of Bhaiyyalal  Bhotmange 

there were some ladies but he could not identify  them as 

they   were     standing   far   away.     The   witness   categorically 

denied   the   suggestion   that   he   could   not   identify   them 

because of darkness and stated that it was not so dark. The 

witness  admitted  that  during those days  there  used to be 

load shedding for about 8 to 10 hours.

26D. He further  deposed  that  Surekha  and Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange used to prepare bidis also and bidi  contractor 

and   his   men   used   to   come   to   the   house   of   Surekha 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

68Bhotmange even at odd hours.  He claimed ignorance as to 

whether   there   used   to   be   quarrels   between   Surekha 

Bhotmange  and bidi  contractor  regarding money matters. 

Witness admitted that he was active in politics in the village 

and that  Mukesh Pusam and Suresh Khandate  were in his 

group in election. He denied that Bhaiyyalal was  also in his 

panel.   He admitted that all the accused used to remain in 

opposite  panel   in  election.  Witness  admitted  that  he  was 

called to Andhalgaon Police Station and threatened several 

times and was threatened that if he did not give statement 

he would also be arrested. 

26E. In the cross examination on behalf of the accused 

nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 he deposed that the distance between the 

place where he stood to see the incident and the house of 

Bhaiyyalal   was   about   100   to   150   meters.   However,   he 

denied the suggestion that from point W­1 in sketch (Exh. 

54)   he   could   not   see   as   to   what   happened   on   the   road 

situated in front of  the house of  Bhaiyyalal.    He admitted 

that   there  were  houses  and  some  trees  besides   the  road. 

However, he denied the suggestion that if some one stood 

on   that   road   he   could   not   have   seen   him.   The   witness 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

69volunteered that persons were visible  but  their faces could 

not be identified.   He further stated that he did not tell the 

police that from his terrace he had seen that some thing was 

going   on   around   the   house   of   Bhaiyyalal   or   that   he   saw 

some   ladies   and   gents   attacking   the   house   of   Surekha 

Bhotmange.   The   witness   was   confronted   with   the   police 

statement   and   the   witness   stated   that   same   was   not 

correctly recorded.  The witness further stated that he could 

not identify 40 to 50 persons who had gathered on the spot. 

Witness admitted that on the day of the incident there were 

showers of rain and the same went up to 7.30 to 8.00 p.m. 

but he denied the suggestion that there was heavy rain with 

the passage  of  time.  He stated that  he did not  remember 

whether   there  was   load  shedding   in the  village   from  5.30 

onwards and that  it went up to late night. He further stated 

about   50   persons   who   were   present   there   were   not   the 

attackers    and he could not  identify  them.  He denied the 

suggestion that  he returned to the village  from the field at 6 

to 6.30 p.m.. The witness volunteers that he returned back 

at  about  5.00  p.m.  He  denied   the  suggestion   that  at  6.30 

p.m. he went to the beetle kiosk  for taking kharra and saw 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

70those   persons   returning   from   Kandri.     To   a   pointed 

question that he did not see the incident, witness stated that 

since   there   was   darkness   he   could   not   see   the   incident 

clearly. Witness volunteered that the Police had threatened 

him to give statement  in their  favour but CBI did not  tell 

him   to   do   so.   Witness   denied   the   suggestion   that   CBI 

induced him by offering to give him job and money if  he 

were to depose in their favour.  The witness  admitted that 

Sidhharth   used     to   visit   the   house   of   Bhaiyyalal   in   his 

presence   as   well   as   in   his   absence.   He   denied     the 

suggestion that Surekha used to file complaints against the 

villagers after quarrels.  He also denied the suggestion that 

Surekha   used   to   threaten   that   people   would   be   falsely 

implicated under the Atrocities Act. The witness denied the 

suggestion that  he had named the accused at the instance 

of the CBI.

26F. The witness  further  stated that  he was taken for 

identification of offenders about four times but he did not 

identify  them.  He admitted  that  he had not  disclosed the 

incident   to   police   officers   and   Ministers   who   visited   the 

village   but   the   same   was   on   account   of   fear.   He   further 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

71deposed that since the police had arrested about 50 persons 

he did not tell the incident to them.  

26G. A   close   scrutiny   of   the   evidence   of   the   above 

witness   discloses   that   although   there   are   certain 

contradictions   in   his   testimony   vis­a­vis   his   earlier 

statements, the core of his testimony has not been shaken 

in the cross examination.  It is difficult to accept that merely 

because accused were in the opposite camp in election the 

witness would falsely implicate them.  It is pertinent to note 

that   the   witness   has   not   implicated   all   of   the   accused 

named in the charge sheet.  The attack on the testimony of 

this witness on the ground that he could not have  seen the 

incident  on  account  of  darkness   is  concerned,  we   find   it 

difficult   to  accept   that  merely  because  the  witness  stated 

that     there   was   a   little   darkness,   he   could   not   see   the 

incident of assault on the deceased.  Moreover, the accused 

were from his village which is a small one. The witness knew 

all the accused and it is the case of the witness himself that 

they were in opposite camp and as such we find it extremely 

difficult   to   accept   the   defence   that   because   of   darkness 

witness   was   not   in   a   position   to   identify   the   accused 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

72assaulting   the   deceased   as   deposed   by   him.   It   is   also 

pertinent   to   note   that   the   witness   claimed   that   he   was 

frightened and he did not disclose the entire incident to the 

police  because he was threatened by police  that  if  he did 

not support the police he would be implicated in the case. 

We have already noted that   initially  the investigation  was 

not   carried   out   in   a   proper   direction   and   indiscriminate 

arrests were made by the local police and, therefore, we find 

it   difficult   to     reject   the   version   of   the   witness   that   on 

account of fear he did not disclose the actual incident to the 

police. It was quite natural    for the witness to disclose the 

actual   incident   to  CBI  after   the  investigation  was  handed 

over   to   CBI   by   the   State   Government.   Therefore,   in   our 

considered opinion, mere delay in disclosing the incident to 

CBI   by   itself   is   not   fatal   to   the   prosecution   case   having 

regard   to   the   circumstances   mentioned   hereinabove. 

Moreover,   the   evidence   of   this   witness   also   stands 

substantially   corroborated   by   his   statement   made   to   the 

Magistrate  which  lends  assurance  to the testimony  of  the 

witness.     Therefore,   we   have   no   hesitation   to   accept   his 

testimony which clearly proved the complicity of   accused 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:44 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

73in the commission of the crime.

27. The next witness examined by the prosecution is 

Mahadeo Zanzad (P.W.20)  who deposed that  his  house  is 

situated at the distance of 100 to 150 feet from the house of 

Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange.   He claimed that he was residing at 

Khairlanji  since his birth.  He further deposed   that on the 

day of the incident he returned from his field and went to 

beetle kiosk to take   kharra at about 6.30 p.m..  Thereafter, 

he   heard   noise   coming   from   the   side   of   the   house   of 

Bhaiyyalal.  He  went   towards   the  house  of  Bhaiyyalal  and 

stood at the back side of the house of Nathuji Khandate and 

he saw about 20 to 30 persons standing around the house of 

Bhaiyyalal   and   thereafter   Surekha   Bhotmange   came   out 

from   the   back   side   portion   of   her   house.     Thereafter, 

Prabhakar   Mandalekar,   Jagtdish   Mandalekar,   Sakru 

Binjewar,   Vishwanath   Dhande,   Shatrughana   Dhande, 

Ramuji   Dhande   and   Purushottam   Titirmare   surrounded 

Surekha Bhotmange.    Surekha was then shouting that she 

should not be beaten.   Some male   persons were telling to 

beat   her   while   some   other   were   telling   to   let   her   go. 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

74Thereafter,   he   could   not   see   what   happened   due   to 

darkness.  Then  he  heard  shouts   that  Sudhir  was  running 

towards the field and he be caught. He also saw  2­3 persons 

running towards Sudhir but he could not identify those 2­3 

persons.  He  heard   the  shouts     of  Sudhir  as  “Maru  Naka, 

Maru Naka (not to beat him)”. Some persons  were telling to 

beat  him  but  some  persons  were  telling  not   to beat  him. 

After   some   times     some   persons   ran   towards   the     hand 

pump. Then he became frightened and went to his house.

27A. He   further   deposed   that   he   had   undergone   eye 

operation.   He   further   deposed   that   he   knew   Sidhharth 

Gajbhiye,    Police Patil  of Village Dhushala and he used to 

come to the house of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange but he did not 

know anything about beating   of Sidhharth Gajbhiye as at 

that   time   he   was   residing   with   his   sister   at   Nagpur.   He 

further deposed that the police recorded his statement after 

2­3 days of the incident and CBI also recorded his statement 

but he did not remember the date.   His statement was also 

recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohadi but 

he did not remember the date.  The witness admitted that 

after  his  statement  was recorded by the Magistrate  it  was 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

75read over to him and he also read the same and found to be 

correct. The CBI also recorded  his statement but it was not 

read over to him. He deposed that he did not know   what 

Prabhakar   Mandalekar,   Jagdish   Mandalekar,   Sakru 

Binjewar,   Vishwanath   Dhande,   Shatrughana   Dhande, 

Ramuji   Dhande   and   Purshottam   Titirmare     were   doing 

while   standing   surrounding   Surekha   Bhotmange.     The 

witness  stated that  he did not remember  whether  he told 

the   Magistrate   as   to   what   those   persons   were   doing 

surrounding Surekha. He went to the extent of saying   that 

even if  his statement  to Magistrate  was shown to him, he 

was not able to recollect about it but he could not give any 

reason   for   the  same.  He  further  deposed   that  he  did  not 

know what those persons were having in their hands when 

they   surrounded   Surekha   as   he   could   not   see   due   to 

darkness.  At  this  stage,  the permission  was sought  by the 

Special   Public   Prosecutor   to   cross   examine   the   witness 

which  was  granted  by  the   learned     trial   Judge.     In  cross­

examination on behalf of the prosecution nothing tangible 

has been brought on record in support  of the prosecution 

since the witness denied that he had made statement to CBI 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

76as reflected in the statement.   The witness was confronted 

with the statement to the Magistrate in which he has stated 

that he saw Surekha coming out of her house.  He admitted 

the   fact   that   Jagdish   Mandalekar,     Vishwanath   Dhande, 

Shatrughana   Dhande,   Ramu   Dhande,   Sakru   Binjewar, 

Prabhakar   Mandalekar,   Gopal   Binjewar   and   Purshottam 

Titirmare   beat   Surekha   and   some   of   the   persons   were 

holding   sticks   in   their   hands   while   had   no   weapon   and 

Surekha was shouting   while  those persons were shouting 

“beat, beat” was correct. However, he stated that he did not 

see such incident but he had made false statement before 

the   Magistrate.     The   witness   admitted   that     Vishwanath 

Dhande,   Shatrughna   Dhande   and   Ramu   Dhande   were 

related to each other and they belonged to Kunbi caste and 

he   also   belonged   to   Kunbi   caste.   He   further   stated   that 

Prabhakar Mandlekar and   Jagdish Mandlekar belonged to 

Kalar caste.

28. We do not deem it necessary to refer in detail the 

cross examination on behalf of the Public Prosecutor as well 

as  on behalf  of  the  accused  because  we  find  it  extremely 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

77difficult to place reliance upon any of the statements made 

by   him   either   in   examination   in     chief   or   in   the   cross 

examination since the witness  had the   audacity  to admit 

that   he   had   made   false     statement   to   the   Magistrate. 

Admittedly,   the   witness   was   prosecuted   for   giving   false 

evidence   before   the   learned   trial   Judge   and   it   has   been 

submitted by both the sides that he was convicted for giving 

false evidence. This being the position, we find it extremely 

difficult to place reliance upon any of the statements made 

by him either  in the chief  or  in the cross  examination on 

behalf  of  the Special  Public  Prosecutor  or by advocate  on 

behalf of the accused.

29. We  are   unable   to   accept   the  submission  of   Mr. 

Khan that  part  of  his  testimony  that  some  of  the accused 

surrounded   Surekha   and   that   witness   heard   shouts   of 

Sudhir   can   be   relied   upon   as   corroborative   piece   of 

evidence   for   other   witnesses.   The   witness   who   has   the 

audacity to accept that he has made a false statement to the 

Magistrate   and   who   has   been   convicted   for   giving   false 

evidence deserves no credence.  In our considered opinion 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

78though the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus   is 

not applicable in India, the same can not be invoked while 

appreciating   the   evidence   of   this   witness     who   has   been 

convicted for giving false evidence. The testimony of such 

witness deserves to be rejected outright.  We are, therefore, 

of  the considered  opinion that  his  evidence  except  to the 

extent that he has deposed about the castes of some of the 

accused which has not even been disputed by the accused, 

has to be rejected.

30. The next witness examined and relied upon by the 

prosecution is Premlal Walke (P.W.22).  He deposed that he 

was   residing   in   the   village   Khairlanji   since   last   10   to   12 

years. His house is situated at the western side of the house 

of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange.   On 29.9.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. 

he heard shouts as “Mara Mara” from the side of the house 

of Bhaiyyalal. At that time he was busy in preparing for Puja 

of Durga Devi. They were shouts of Vishvanath Dhande and 

Shatrughana  Dhande.  He   claimed that  he was frightened 

and he did not come out of the house. After some time he 

heard words  “where are boys”.  After some time there was 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

79peace and he came out of the house and came up to gate. 

He saw one bullock  cart passing through the road which is 

situated in front of the house of Bhaiyyalal. The bullock cart 

was proceedings towards Kandri  from the side of Dhusala 

road. There were some dead bodies in the bullock cart and 

Jagdish Mandlekar was  riding that bullock cart.  Vishvanath 

Dhande,   Shatrughana   Dhande,   Ramu   Dhande,   Sakru 

Binjewar   and   some   other   persons   were   following   that 

bullock cart and they were having sticks in their hands. The 

bullocks of the cart were  reddish in colour.  After some time 

police vehicle came but since he was frightened he did not 

say anything  to the  police.    One policeman  asked him as 

where the family members of Bhaiyyalal Bhotmange but he 

feigned ignorance.   He further deposed that his statement 

was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohadi. 

In cross examination the witness stated that there are about 

15 houses in Toli.  He was on visiting terms with Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange but there were no quarrels between Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange   and   villagers   at   any   time.   He   admitted   that 

Surekha   and   her   children   used   to   keep   fast   and   used   to 

come to his house for prasad of Durga Mata. He denied the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

80suggestion that they had come to his house on the day of 

incident   for   prasad.   He   further   admitted   that   there   were 

about six families of Gond caste and about 3­4 families of 

caste of Kunbi in their locality.  Mukesh Pusam was residing 

in their locality and he was his brother­in­law.  Mukesh was 

residing in front of his house and Suresh Khandate was also 

residing in front of his house but he is not his relative but 

belongs   to   his   caste.   Witness   stated   that   police   did   not 

record   statement   of   his   wife   in   his   presence.   Witness 

claimed that on the day of incident he went to his employer 

Bhagwan   Dhenge   in   the   morning   and   returned   at   about 

6.00   p.m..   The   witness   was   confronted   with   the   police 

statement  in which  it  was  stated that  on the night  of  the 

incident  he had returned  home  at  8.00 p.m..  The witness 

stated   that   it   was   not   correctly   recorded.   The   witness 

claimed that police did not record the statement as per his 

say.  He stated that  he had given statement to the Judicial 

Magistrate. The witness initially stated that he came alone 

in   the   court   but   thereafter   corrected   saying   that   he   had 

come with Malewar Police Constable who was his security 

guard. The witness stated that on the night of the incident 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

81he  did not  tell police anything  when he came to the village 

and  he  did  not   tell   the  police  anything    before  3.10.2006 

although they used to come to inquire about incident.  CID 

police   had   recorded   his   statement   a   month   after   his 

statement was recorded by police but he did not tell them 

correct   facts   as   he   was   under   fear   since   police   arrested 

many persons. He denied the suggestion that he was taken 

to Mohadi by police for recording his statement. He denied 

the suggestion that he deposed against the accused at the 

instance of CBI although he did not know anything about 

the incident.  In cross examination on behalf of the accused 

nos. 1,2 , 8 and 9  the witness denied the suggestion that he 

could not see properly during the night hours or he could 

not identify  any person from the distance of 15 to 20 feet 

even if he remains in darkness.   The witness admitted that 

he had given statement to CBI after two and half months of 

the incident. The witness denied the suggestion that he had 

participated in the village election or that he had given vote 

to   the   candidates   to   the   group   of   Mukesh.   The   witness 

admitted that he was religious minded and used to worship 

regularly. The witness admitted that he could not read and 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

82write but he could put his signature. The witness stated that 

after the incident many Leaders and Ministers came to the 

village for about two months and during that period police 

arrested many villagers.  He further  deposed that  he know 

Mr. Gajbhiye as Police Patil of Dhusala but he did not  know 

his name.   He admitted that Gajbhiye used to come to the 

house of Bhaiyyalal but he did not know whether Gajbhiye 

used to help Bhaiyyalal and his family members. He denied 

the suggestion that due to political rivalry with the accused 

he is deposing falsely against them.

30A. A   close   scrutiny   of   the   evidence   of   the   above 

witness  discloses  that  core  of  his  testimony  has  not  been 

shaken in the cross examination and there is absolutely no 

reason forthcoming in the cross examination of the witness 

as   to   why   he   should   falsely   implicate   accused   he   has 

named.  He specifically named the accused who were found 

in   and   near   the   bullock   cart   in   which   dead   bodies   were 

carried   out.   The   evidence   of   this   witness   inspires 

confidence and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve 

his version that the accused named by him had carried the 

dead bodies in the bullock cart on the day of the incident.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

8331. At   this   stage   we   would   like   to   deal   with   the 

arguments advanced on behalf of the accused that there is 

variance   between   the   evidence   of   eye   witnesses   and 

medical   evidence   tendered   through   Dr.   Avinash   John 

Shende (P.W.14) who deposed that the incised injuries on 

the deceased could not have been caused by hard and blunt 

object.    Mr.  Khan is justified in placing reliance upon the 

Judgment   of   the  Apex   Court   in  Kailash   vs.   State  of   M.P.. 

((2006)  11   Supreme  Court  Cases,   420)  in  which   the   Apex 

Court   has   held   that   the   wounds   produced   by   a   blunt 

instrument may simulate appearances of an incised wound. 

In   holding   so   the   Apex   Court   placed   reliance   upon   the 

Medical   Jurisprudence   and     Toxicology   by   Glaister   and 

Rentoul's in which it has been stated as under:­

“Under   certain   circumstances,   and   in   certain 

situations   on   the   body,   wounds   produced   by   a 

blunt  instrument  may simulate  the appearances 

of  an incised wound.  These  wounds  are  usually 

found   over   bone   which   is     thinly   covered   with 

tissue,     in   the   regions   of   the   head,   forehead, 

eyebrow,   cheek,   and   lower   jaw,   among   others. 

When   such   a   wound   exposes   hair     bulbs   at   its 

edges, it is possible by examining these carefully 

to decide whether they have been cut or crushed 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

84and   thus   establish   whether   the   wound   was 

caused by a sharp or blunt instrument. As a rule, 

especially in the living subject, a wound produced 

by a blunt instrument  will  disclose some degree 

of   bruising   and   swelling   of   the   edges   and   the 

deeper   tissues  will   be   less   cleanly   severed   than 

when divided by a sharp cutting instrument.”

31A.             Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in 

the case of State of Rajashthan  vs. Laxman Singh (2002 (10) 

SCC, 65.   Therefore, we find it extremely difficult to accept 

the submission made by both the learned counsel  for the 

accused   that   since  medical  evidence   runs   counter   to   the 

evidence  of  the eye witnesses  the entire  prosecution  case 

deserves to be rejected and, therefore, the complicity of the 

accused   has   not   been   established.   The   medical   evidence 

tendered   by   Dr.   Avinash   (P.W.14)     who   conducted   post 

mortem   on   the   four   dead   bodies   can   not   outweigh   the 

cogent evidence of the above referred eye witnesses which 

clearly proves the complicity of the accused in the crime.

32. We shall now deal with the evidence of Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange (P.W.17), the husband of Surekha and father of 

Sudhir,   Roshan   and   Priyanka,     who   lodged   report   on 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

8530.9.2006 at Andhalgaon Police Station.  He deposed that he 

belongs   to   Mahar   caste.   He   married   Surekha   in   the   year 

1982  and Sudhir,  Roshan  and Priyanka  were  his  children. 

Sudhir  was  physically  handicapped      and  all   the  accused 

were the residents of Khairlanji village. He further deposed 

that all the accused killed Sudhir, Roshan and Priyanka. On 

29.9.2006   in   the   evening   he   was   present   at   his   house. 

Incident took place at about 6 to 6.30 p.m.. At that time  all 

his family members were present in the house.  He further 

claimed that  villagers  attacked their  house  in the evening 

shouting that “Mahar Dhed people falsely implicated us in 

police case”.   He saw sticks and chains in their hands.   He 

was   frightened   on   seeing   them.   On   seeking   them   he   ran 

away towards Dhusala. He further claimed that out   of the 

villagers   he   knew   12   to   13   persons   and   they   were   Gopal 

Binjewar, Sakru Binjewar, Jagdish Mandle, Prabha Mandle, 

Nanya   Manya   Mandle,   Hahipal   Dhande,   Ramu   Dhande, 

Shatrughna   Dhande,   Purushottam   Titirmare,   Premlal 

Khurpe   and   others.     He   ran   towards   Dhusala   as   he   was 

frightened   after   looking   to   the   fury   of   the   mob.   He   met 

Police   Patil   Sidhharth   and   told   him     about   the   incident. 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

86Siddharth     made   phone   call   to   the   Andhalgaon   Police 

Station on his mobile phone. At about 9 to 10 p.m. he went 

to Andhalgaon Police Station to lodge report.   At that time 

he was in a frightened condition and as such he could not 

lodge  report.    On that  night  he resided  with Siddharth  at 

Dhusala.

32A. He  further  deposed  that  on the  next  day i.e.  on 

30.9.2006  he  went   to   his  house  at   about  4   to  5  a.m.  and 

found  that  his   house  was   in   ransacked  condition  and  he 

could   not   find   his   family   members   there.   Thereafter,   he 

went     to   Yadnyapal   Khobragade   at   village   Deulgaon   and 

asked him whether  his  family  members  had come to him 

but   he   replied   in   negative.     Thereafter,   he   along   with 

Yadnyapal  went  to Andhalgaon  Police  Station and lodged 

written  complaint.  At  that  time  he was  also  in frightened 

condition.     He   was   shown   the   report   (Exh.   133).     He 

confirmed its contents as correct. He further   deposed that 

on 30.9.2006   dead body of Priyanka was found which was 

shown to him at Mohadi Government Hospital.  He went to 

Mohadi Hospital at the instance of police and saw the dead 

body of Priyanka which was in a naked condition with many 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

87injuries of sticks and chains.

32B. On   the   next   day,   he   saw   the   dead   bodies   of 

Surekha , Roshan and Sudhir. He went near the stream after 

getting  information  about  finding  of  the  dead  bodies.    At 

that time police had already prepared the panchanama. He 

had seen the dead bodies in Mohadi Government Hospital 

and bodies were having injury marks of sticks and chains. 

Blouse of Surekha was in torn condition.   He identified the 

white  colour  blouse  (article  25)  and  blue  skirt  (article  24) 

which were   worn by Priyanka. He identified the petticoat 

(article  36)  and  red  colour  blouse   (article  35)  as   those  of 

Surekha.    He also identified the blue and white  strip shirt 

(article 37) and white colour banian (article 38) as those of 

Roshan and the under wear(article 39) which was worn by 

Sudhir at the time of incident. He further deposed that on 

3.9.2006   at   about   6   to   6.30   p.m.   some   villagers     beat 

Siddharth Gajbhiye at Khairlanji village. At that time he was 

present in his house since he was ill.    Thereafter,  Surekha 

and Priyanka brought Siddharth at their house to give first 

aid. On 14.9.2006 statements of Surekha and Priyanka were 

recorded     regarding   assault   on   Siddharth   Gajbhiye.     He 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

88further   deposed   that     village   Khairlanji   consists   of   150 

houses and there are three houses of Mahar caste including 

his house. The other two houses are of Shri Khobragade and 

Shri Meshram and his children  only were taking education. 

He  had  about   five  acres  of    ancestral  agricultural   land  at 

Khairlanji. The villagers wanted right   of way from his field 

and as per the order of the Tahsildar Mohadi he had given 

15 feet of land.   He identified his signature on printed FIR 

(Exh. 124).

32C. In the cross examination on behalf of the accused 

1,2,8 and 9   he admitted that he had not mentioned in the 

report (Exh. 133) that villagers were shouting “Mahar Dhed 

people   falsely   implicated   them   in   a   police   case”.     He 

claimed that he did not state so since he was in a frightened 

condition. He did not remember whether his statement was 

recorded by CID on 5.10.2006 or whether  it  was recorded 

twice on 29.9.2006.    He admitted that he had not told the 

CBI that villagers were shouting as “Mahar, Dhed” and that 

they   were   falsely   implicated   in   police   case.     He   further 

deposed that he had not mentioned in the report (Exh. 133) 

that villagers had come to his house with sticks and chains. 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

89He  admitted  that   in the report   (Exh.133)  names  of  Gopal 

Binjewar,   Sakaru   Binjewar,   Mahipal   Dhande,   Sishupal 

Dhande, Ramu Dhande, Shatrughna Dhande, Purushottam 

Titirmare   and   Premlal   Khurpe   were   not   shown   as   non­

applicants.     He   admitted   that   the   name   of   Prabha 

Mandlekar was not mentioned in the report (Exh. 133) and 

he   could   not   state   any   reason   for   the   same.     He   also 

admitted that he had not stated in the report (Exh. 133) that 

he was frightened due to fury of mob (omission is in respect 

of fury of mob).  Similarly, he admitted that in the report he 

had not stated that he met Siddharth and he could not give 

any reason for the same. Similarly, he could not state as to 

why   the   fact   that   Siddharth   had   made   a   phone   call   to 

Andhalgaon  Police  Station  by his  mobile  phone    was  not 

mentioned in the police report. Similarly he could not give 

any reason  as  to why  in the report   it  was  not  mentioned 

that he had gone to house at 4 to 5 a.m. and he found the 

house   in   ransacked   condition.     He   further   stated   that 

portion marked 'A'   of the report which shows time of his 

return to the house as 6.00 a.m. was not correct. He further 

stated that the report (Exh. 133) was scribed by the petition 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

90writer  who  resides   in   front  of  Andhalgaon  Police  Station. 

The witness  was  confronted  with the statement  to CBI  in 

which he had not mentioned the names of the attackers but 

he could not assign any reason for not finding the same in 

his   statement.     He   further   deposed   that   apart   from   14 

names he has not stated any other names to police, CID and 

CBI.  He was confronted with the statement made to Police 

on   29.11.2006   in   which   names   of   several   persons   were 

mentioned but he could not assign any reason for the same. 

He   further   stated   that   CBI   recorded   his   statements   on 

7.12.2006,   8.12.2006   and   22.12.2006.   He   further   deposed 

that  his  house hold expenses  were  about  Rs.  25,000/­  per 

year and there was no electric meter in his house. His son 

was     having   mobile.     He   denied   the   suggestion   that 

Siddharth  used to pay charges  of  that  mobile.     In further 

cross   examination   he   stated   that   he   did   not   remember 

whether  he  went   to  Khairlanji  village   to   the  house  of  his 

relative before the day of the incident. He stated that he was 

originally     resident   of  village  Ambagad   in   Taluka  Tumsar 

which is at the distance of 20 to 25 km from Khairlanji.  He 

further stated that he did not know whether he returned to 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

91Khairlanji  on the next  day of  the incident.  He denied  the 

suggestion that no incident had taken place in his presence. 

In cross examination on behalf  of the accused nos.  3 to 7 

and 11 he stated that he obtained his caste certificate and 

those of his children before the incident.  He admitted that 

his family members  had good relations with the family of 

Mukesh and Suresh Khandate. He admitted that there is a 

big cow dung   behind his  house but he denied that  grass 

had grown  in that cow dung in September.  In further cross 

examination, he stated that on the day of incident Surekha 

returned   to   the   house   and   thereafter   he   returned.     He 

further   stated   that   the   incident   occured   during   the   rainy 

season.

32D. In cross examination on behalf of the accused no. 

10 he stated that he went to Khairlanji on foot on 30.9.2006 

early   in the morning  and he reached  Khairlanji  within  15 

minutes.     On   30.9.2006   he   reached   Andhalgaon   Police 

Station at about 9 to 10 a.m. and he got his report scribed 

through   petition   writer   and   put   his   signature   on   it.   He 

submitted  report to Police at about 11.00 a.m.. He was told 

by the police that on 30.9.2006 itself  they had registered the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

92offence. Witness claimed that after lodging report he went 

to Mohadi Government Hospital. He stated that the portion 

marked 'A' in the statement recorded by CBI on 7.12.2006 

which shows that he went to Mohadi Government Hospital 

along   with   In­charge   Police   Station   Officer,   Andhalgaon 

Police Station was not correctly recorded but he could not 

assign any reason for the same.  He denied the suggestion 

that  he used to   pick up quarrels  with villagers  and make 

false   allegations   against   Purshottam   Titarmare   and   his 

family.    He  denied   the  suggestion  that  he  was  not  aware 

about the incident and, therefore, he did not give statement 

to   Magistrate   when   he   was   taken   to   the   Magistrate   for 

recording his statement.

33. Perusal of the report (Exh. 133) which the witness 

claimed   to   have   lodged   on   30.9.2006   in   the   morning 

discloses   that   in   the   report   he   named   seven   persons 

including   accused   nos.   5,6,8   and   9   and   three   others   viz. 

Kanhaiyya   Mandale,   Nanya   Mandale   and   Kiran   Khurape 

who were not charge sheeted by CBI. Perusal of the Exh. 134 

which   is   a   printed   FIR   discloses   that   in   the   said   report 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

93specific    names  of  12  persons  viz.    Dilip  Dhenge,   Jagdish 

Mandlekar,   Prabha   alias   Prabhakar   Mandlekar,   Gopal 

Binjewar,   Sakru   Binjewar,   Nanya   Mandlekar,   Prakash 

Kadav,   Pankaj   Atilkar,   Mahipal   Dhandge,   Shatrunghna 

Dhande,  Prem Khurpe   and Dharmpal  Dhande are found. 

There is absolutely no explanation  either from the witness 

or from the Police Inspector S.S.Bharne (P.W. 23)  as to how 

in the printed FIR some more names were added.

34. The evidence of this witness who happens to be 

unfortunate husband and father of the deceased has been 

assailed  on  the  ground  of  delay   inasmuch  as  printed  FIR 

(Exh.   134)   discloses   that   it   was   recorded   on   30.9.2006   at 

20.40 hours.   No doubt FIR is an important document in a 

criminal trial to test the veracity of the prosecution case but 

in   the   present   case   it   is   the   case   of   the   State   itself   that 

investigation  was not carried out properly  by Andhalgaon 

Police Station and also by CID and, therefore, investigation 

was handed  over  to CBI.      Moreover,  Bhaiyyalal  does  not 

claim   to   be   an   eye   witness   to   the   assault   on   his   family 

members.  He claims  that      after  seeing the crowd  he ran 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

94away and went to Siddharth Gajbhiye and spent night with 

him and lodged  report  on the next  day morning  and this 

being   the   position,   mere   fact   that   the   names   of   all   the 

accused  do not   find  place   in   the  FIR.   (Exh.  133)  by   itself 

would not be fatal to the prosecution case. No doubt there 

are certain contradictions  and omissions in the testimony 

of  this  witness  vis­a­vis  earlier  statements.    The  same are 

not sufficient to discredit the evidence of the eye witnesses 

to   which   we   have   made   reference   hereinabvoe   more 

particularly having regard to the fact that Bhaiyyalal himself 

does not claim that he was an eye witness to the incident of 

assault on his family members. The evidence of this  witness 

read   with   report   Exh.   133   clearly   establishes   that   he 

identified   the   accused   nos.   5,6,8   and   9   as   the   persons 

present near his house on 29.9.2006 in the evening.     Mere 

fact that the names of other accused are not found in the 

report   by   itself   would   not   be   sufficient   to   discredit   the 

prosecution   case   about   complicity   of   the   other   accused 

inasmuch   as   the   version   of   the   witness   that   he   was   in 

frightened condition even when he went to lodge report can 

not be lightly brushed aside. However, his version that the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

95assailants who had gathered on the spot were shouting that 

“Mahar, Dhede people falsely implicated  us in police case'' 

can not be accepted in view of the omissions vis­a­vis his 

report   and   statements   recorded   during   investigation. 

Therefore,  the fact that the names of all the accused have 

not been mentioned in the report and that the report (Exh. 

134)   was   lodged   at   8.40   p.m.   on   30.9.2006   would   not   be 

sufficient   to   discredit   the   entire   prosecution   case   about 

complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. 

The evidence of this witness also clearly establishes that he 

identified the dead body of Priyanka on 30.6.2006 and those 

of Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan on 1.7.2006.

35. The   prosecution   has   also   relied   upon   the   extra 

judicial  confessions  made  by the accused  nos.  2 and 8 to 

Anil   Lede   (P.W.10),   Gopichand   Mohature   (P.W.15),   Sunil 

Lede  (P.W.16).  Anil  and  Sunil  are  brothers  and  Sunil  was 

arrested by Police and he was discharged by CBI.    P.W.10 

Anil deposed that on 29.9.2006 at about 9 p.m. while he was 

going to his house accused no.2 Sakru met him on the way. 

Accused no.2 Sakru asked him to provide “kharra”  but he 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

96did not possess it and as such he informed him that he did 

not possess the same.  Thereafter, he asked Sakru (A­2) as to 

where  he went  to which Sakru told that  four  members  of 

Bhotmange   family   were   murdered.     Anil   asked   him   who 

murdered them to which Sakru replied that he along with 

accused 2,3,7,8,9 and 11 had committed those murders.   It 

is extremely difficult to place reliance upon the evidence of 

this witness in respect of extra judicial confession alleged to 

have been made to him by  Sakru (A­2). There is absolutely 

nothing on record to suggest  that  Anil  was close friend of 

Sakru so as to place complete confidence in Anil justifying 

such disclosure. There is absolutely no reason for Sakru to 

make   such   confession   to   Anil.     Ordinarily,   extra   judicial 

confession is made to a person of confidence or to a person 

from whom the accused wants some help to get out of the 

trouble.  This is not a factual situation in the present case. 

Moreover,   disclosure   about   extra   judicial   confession   has 

been  made  about  one  and  half  month  after   the   incident. 

The circumstances in which the witness claims that Sakru 

made   confession   to   him   raise   serious   doubt   about   the 

authenticity   of   the   extra   judicial   confession   made   to   the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

97witness.  No doubt suggestion was given to the witness that 

when Sakru met him he was in a drunken condition which 

has  been accepted  by the witness.  Therefore,   in any  case 

extra   judicial   confession   upon   which   reliance   has   been 

placed by the prosecution can not be said to be voluntary to 

inspire   confidence.     Moreover,   in   cross­examination   Anil 

has admitted that at the time when Sakru met him he was 

murmuring   like   a   drunken   man.     Considering   all   these 

factors, we find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon 

the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by 

Sakru (A­2)  to Anil Lede.  In any case, Mr. Jaiswal is justified 

in   placing   reliance   upon   the   Judgment   in     the   case   of 

C.K.Raveendran   vs.State   of   Kerala   (2000)   1   SCC   225    in 

which  the  Apex  Court  refused  to  place  reliance  upon  the 

extra   judicial   confession   made   by   an   accused     after 

consuming liquor in arrack shop on the ground that same 

could not be said to be voluntarily and truthful.

36. The   prosecution   has   also   relied   upon   the   extra 

judicial  confession   made by Jagdish (A­8).      P.W.16 Sunil 

deposed that on 30.9.2006 at 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. he opened his 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

98tea   stall.   Then   accused   no.   8   Jagdish   came   there. 

Gopichand   (P.W.15)   also   came   there.   Accused   Jagdish 

demanded  tea  on  credit  but  Sunil   refused   to  give   tea  on 

credit in the morning hour.  Jagdish told him that he had Rs. 

150   in  his   shirt   pocket  which   was   burnt.   On   questioning 

why the shirt was burnt, Jagdish told him that he had killed 

four members  of  the family  of Bhayyalal  and as such   his 

clothes  were   stained  with   blood   and,   therefore,   he   burnt 

those clothes with that cash. Gopichand (P.W.15) who was 

present at the stall at the relevant time has also claimed that 

he had heard such conversation between Sunil and Jagdish. 

In cross­examination, Sunil admitted that when he refused 

to give tea to Jagdish, he became angry and he left his shop 

murmuring.     Admittedly,   Gopichand   (P.W.15)   and   Sunil 

(P.W.16)   were   arrested   by   police   in   connection   with   the 

same crime and they claimed that they had told the police 

about the extra judicial confession made by Jagdish but no 

attention was paid to the same.  Upon close scrutiny of the 

evidence   of   Sunil   and   Gopichand,   we   find   it   extremely 

difficult to place reliance on the evidence of Sunil as  well as 

Gopichand that Jagdish had made extra judicial confession 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

99as   deposed   by   them.   It   is   well   settled   that   extra   judicial 

confession should be voluntary and truthful.  In the present 

case, we find it extremely difficult  to accept the version of 

the two witnesses about extra judicial confession alleged to 

have been made by accused no. 8.   It is highly improbable 

that Jagdish, upon being asked by Sunil  as to why Jagdish 

had     burnt   the   shirt   in   which   he   had   Rs.   150/­,   would 

disclose him the reason for burning shirt.  It is not the case 

of the prosecution that Sunil was a close friend of Jagdish or 

that he had confidence on him so as to disclose to him that 

he   had   committed   murder   of   four   family   members   of 

Bhayyalal   Bhotmange.     We,   therefore,   find   it   extremely 

difficult to place reliance upon the extra judicial confession 

alleged to have been made by Jagdish (A­8) to Sunil (P.W.16) 

in presence of Gopichand (P.W.15).

37. We  shall   deal  with   the  aspect  of  motive   for   the 

commission of the crime.  According to the accused,  there 

was absolutely no motive to commit ghastly crime for which 

they   have   been     convicted     by   the   learned   trial   court. 

According   to   the   prosecution   itself,   motive   was   to   take 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

100revenge.   The   evidence   regarding   motive     comes   from 

Suresh   (P.W.3),     Siddharth   (P.W.18),   Rashtrapal   (P.W.5). 

According   to   Suresh   (P.W.3)   on   3.9.2006   at   6.00   a.m. 

Siddharth   (P.W.18)   came   to   the   house   of   Bhayyalal   at 

Khairlanji.    Sakru (A­2) came there  and demanded wages. 

There was altercation between both of them and Siddharth 

slept   Sakru   (A­2).     Siddharth   (P.W.18)   deposed   that   on 

3.9.2006   he   came   to   the   house   of   Bhayyalal   and   met 

Priyanka and then proceeded  towards Kandri on his motor 

cycle.    After  proceeding  for about  half  k.m.  some  persons 

accosted   him   and   beat   him.     Thereafter,   Priyanka   and 

Surekha   came   there   and   brought   him   to   their   house. 

Siddharth lodged report after two days which was registered 

as Crime No. 52/06.   Mr. Bharne, PSI (P.W.23)   confirmed 

filing of the report by Siddharth and stated that he recorded 

statements   of   Priyanka   and   Surekha   Bhotmange   who 

claimed  that  they had  seen the  incident.    P.W.2    Mukesh 

and   P.W.3   Suresh   also   deposed   that   at   the   time   of   the 

incident accused shouted that Surekha got them entangled 

in   police   case.     The   above   evidence   clearly   suggests   that 

accused suspected that they were implicated   in the crime 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:45 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

101of   assault   on   Siddharth   by   Priyanka   and   Surekha 

Bhotmange by claiming to be eye witnesses to the incident 

of  assault  and that  was the motive  for commission of  the 

crime.  No doubt  as held  by the Apex  Court  the motive  is 

double edged weapon and proof of motive by itself can not 

be the ground to hold the accused guilty.  But, the evidence 

of   the   above   referred   witnesses   to   which   we   have   made 

reference clearly proves complicity of the appellants in the 

commission of the crime.  Proof of  motive lends assurance 

to the prosecution case. Therefore, we have no hesitation to 

hold   that   the   prosecution   has   been   able   to   establish   the 

motive on the part of the accused to commit the  crime. 

38. The   prosecution   also   examined     Yadnapal 

Khobragade   (P.W.4)   brother   of   deceased   Surekha.     His 

evidence discloses that in the morning hours on 30.9.2006 

Bhaiyyalal   came   to   his   house   at   Deulgaon   and   asked 

whether     his   sister   had   came   there.     He   told   him   that 

Surekha   did   not   come   there   and   asked   him   as   to   what 

happened   whereupon   he   told   him   that   some   villagers   of 

Khairlanji   village   attacked   their   house   and   beat   Surekha, 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

102Roshan,  Sudhir  and Priyanka  by giving   blows    of  bicycle 

chains and sticks and since he was frightened he ran away 

from the spot.  He further  deposed  that  thereafter  he and 

Bhaiyyalal   went   to   Dhusala   at   the   house   of   Siddharth 

Gajbhiye.     Siddharth   Gajbhiye   asked   Bhaiyyalal   to   lodge 

report   to   Police.     Thereafter   he   and   Bhaiyyalal     went   to 

Andhalgaon   Police   Station   to   lodge   report.   They   reached 

the  Andhalgaon  Police  Station    at  11.00  a.m..    P.S.O.  Mr. 

Bharne   was   not   available.   They   told   the   Head   Constable 

that they wanted to lodge compliant.  Head Constable made 

phone  call   to  P.S.O.,  Bharne  who  gave message  that  they 

should be kept waiting there and that he would return after 

some time.  After some time Shri Bharne came  to the Police 

Station  and  told  them  that  one  body  of  a  girl  was   found 

having name 'Priyanka' engraved on her hand as 'Priyanka' 

and they should come there for identification and thereafter 

they went to Mohadi Government Hospital along with Mr. 

Bharne and found that  it  was the dead body of    Priyanka 

and there were no clothes on the person of the dead body 

and   there   were   various   marks   of   injuries   on   her   person. 

Thereafter,   on   1.10.2006   at   about   8.30     a.m.   Rashtrapal 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

103Narnavare  made  phone  call   to   them  and told  that     three 

dead   bodies     were   found   and    he   was  asked   to   come  to 

Andhalgaon.  He went to Andhalgaon where he did not  find 

any dead body  so he went  to Mohadi Government Hospital 

where  he saw the  dead  bodies    of    Surekha,  Roshan  and 

Sudhir in a tractor.  After looking at the dead bodies he felt 

giddiness.  The witness has been cross­examined on behalf 

of the accused but nothing  tangible to shake his testimony 

has been brought  on record.  The evidence of  this  witness 

substantially   corroborated   the   evidence   of   Bhaiyyalal 

Bhotmange (P.W.17).

39. The   prosecution   also   examined     Rashtrapal 

Narnavare   (P.W.5)   the   nephew   of   Surekha,   who   deposed 

that Surekha was  real youngest sister  of his mother and she 

got   married   with   Bhaiyyalal   Bhotmange   about   20   to   21 

years back and they used to reside at Khairlanji along with 

their   children   Sudhir,   Roshan   and   Priyanka.   He   further 

deposed that on 29.9.2006 at about 5.30 p.m.   he received 

phone call from Surekha Bhotmange and she asked him to 

come to Khairlanji. She informed him that 12 persons who 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

104were   arrested   in   the   case   of     Siddharth   Gajbhiye   were 

released  on bail  and  they  returned  to  village.  She   further 

told that these persons with sticks boarded a tractor to go to 

Kandri   to    beat    Siddharth  Gajbhiye  and  Rajan  Gajbhiye. 

She   told   him   that   because   of   this   she   and   her   family 

members   are   in   danger   of   life   and,   therefore,   he   should 

come to Khairlanji.   He told her that it was evening and he 

was unable to come there and that she should come to their 

village to which she stated that she could not come there. 

He told her to complain   to Andhalgaon Police Station but 

she told him that   she could not go to Andhalgaon Police 

Station   as   about   2­3   days   prior   Dy.   Sarpanch   and   PSO 

Bharne threatened her by coming to her house that since 

she was giving statements against  the villagers  if anything 

could   happen   then   they   will   not   be   responsible   as 

supporters  of  MLA and MP are behind  them.    He further 

deposed   that   on   30.9.2006   at   about   10.00   a.m.   Yagyapal 

Khobragade    (P.W.4)    made a phone call  to him and told 

him that he was waiting in Andhalgaon Police Station and 

he should come there.   He further told that Bhaiyyalal was 

with him and that  Surekha,  Sudhir,  Roshan  and Priyanka 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

105were   missing   since   previous   night.     He   told   him   that   he 

should lodge  complaint  to Andhalgaon  Police  Station.  He 

further deposed that he went to Andhalgaon Police Station. 

After   some   time   P.S.O.   Bharne   came   and   told   that   dead 

body of the girl was found  in a canal at   Wadegaon village 

limit.     Thereafter   he   came   along   with   Bhaiyyalal   and 

Yadnapal   and   identified   the   dead   body.     He   stated   that 

again on the next day he went to Andhalgaon Police Station 

where he was informed that three dead bodies were found 

in the limits of Wadegaon.   Thereafter he went to the spot 

and identified the three dead bodies  as those of  Surekha, 

Sudhir   and   Roshan.   Though   the   witness   was   cross 

examined   vis­a­vis   earlier   statement   we   do   not   deem   it 

necessary to discuss the evidence of this witness   being of 

formal  nature and the same proves that Surekha had given 

a   phone   call   to   him   at   about   5.30   p.m.   On   29.9.2006 

apprehending danger to life and that   he had gone to the 

Police Station on 30.9.2006 and he had identified the dead 

bodies of Priyanaka, Surekha, Sudhir and Roshan.

40. The prosecution  also examined the Investigating 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

106Officers   viz.     Milind   Bansod   (P.W.13),     Vinayak   Susatkar 

(P.W.25),     Avinash   Rajurkar   (P.W.   26),     Sanjay   Nimje 

(P.W.28),     Vitthal   Dhage   (P.W.29),     Nareshkumar   Sharma 

(P.W.30),     Binayakumar   Thakur   (P.W.31),     Pradip   Mane 

(P.W.32), Maroti Patil (P.W.33),   Nandkumar Kutti (P.W.34) 

who   deposed   about   investigation   carried   by   each   one   of 

them     and   through   the   evidence   of   these   witnesses 

contradictions and omissions in the complaint vis­a­vis the 

statements recorded by the respective witnesses have been 

proved by the accused. The prosecution also examined  Shri 

Pradip     Ladekar   (P.W.35),   the   Judicial   Magistrate,   First 

Class,   Mohadi,   who   had   recorded   the   statements   under 

Section  164  of  Cr.P.C.  of   the  witnesses  at   the   instance  of 

CBI.   His evidence proves that he recorded the statements 

of Mahadeo Zanzad (P.W.20),  Premlal Walke (P.W.22),  Anil 

Lede   (P.W.10),   Suresh   Khandate   (P.W.3)   and   Mukesh 

Pusam (P.W.2).

41. Insofar as the submission  advanced on behalf of 

the   accused   that   there   has   been   considerable   delay   in 

recording   the   statements   of   the   witnesses   and   more 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

107particularly   of   the   eye   witnesses   is   concerned   it   is   to   be 

noted that unfortunately the crime was not investigated by 

local   police   as   well   as   by   State   CID   and   as   such   State 

Government  handed over the investigation  to the CBI only 

on   20.11.2006   although   the   crime   was   committed   on 

29.9.2006.  The delay is  ,  therefore,     inevitable.    Moreover, 

having   regard   to   the   situation   prevailing   in   the   village 

Khairlanji  soon after incident it can be safely inferred that 

in   view   of   the   indiscriminate   arrests   made   by   the   local 

police the witnesses were not ready to come forward to give 

statements which was quite natural because of the fear that 

they   might   be   arrested   in   connection   with   the   crime. 

Therefore, considering the situation   existing in the village 

Khairlanji   after   the   incident   till   the   CBI   took   over   the 

investigation   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the 

delay by itself would not be a factor to discredit the version 

of the eye witnesses. We have tested the evidence  of the eye 

witnesses on the touch stone of probabilities having regard 

to   the   situation   prevailing   in   the   village   soon   after     the 

incident  upon  re­appreciation  of   the  entire  evidence    we 

find that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

108who have been convicted by the learned trial Judge  for the 

offences under  Sections 302 read with Section 149 of Indian 

Penal Code,  Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian 

Penal   Code   and   201   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   does   not 

deserve  any   interference.    At   this  stage,  we  would   like   to 

quote what the Apex Court observed in the case of Krishna 

Mochi  and others  vs.  State  of  Bihar  (2002 Supreme  Court 

Cases (Criminal) 1220.   The Supreme Court observed thus;

“ Thus,  in a criminal  trial  a Prosecutor  is faced 

with   so   many   odds.   The   Court   while 

appreciating the evidence should     of lose sight 

of these realities of life and cannot afford to take 

an   unrealistic   approach   by   sitting   in   an   ivory 

tower. I find that  in recent times the tendency to 

acquit  an accused easily   is   galloping fast.  It is 

very   easy   to   pass   an   order   of   acquittal   on   the 

basis  of  minor  points  raised in case  by a short 

judgment   so   as   to   achieve   the   yardstick   of 

disposal. Some discrepancy is  bound to be there 

in each and every case which should not   weigh 

with Court  so long it  does not materially  affect 

the   prosecution   case.   In   case   discrepancies 

pointed   out   are   in   the   realm     of   pebbles,   the 

Court should tread upon it, but if the same are 

boulders, the Court should not make an attempt 

to jump over the same. These days when crime is 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

109looming large and  humanity is suffering and the 

society is so much affected   thereby, duties and 

responsibilities of the courts have become much 

more.   Now   the   maxim   “   Let     hundred   guilty 

persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent 

be convicted”  is, in practice, changing the world 

over and courts have been compelled to accept 

that “society suffers by wrong convictions and it 

equally suffers by wrong acquittals”.   I find that 

this   Court   in   recent   times   has   conscientiously 

taken notice of these facts from time to time. In 

the   case   Inder   Singh   vs.   State   (Delhi   Adm.) 

Krishna Iyer, J. laid down that: (SCC P. 162, para 

2)   “Proof   beyond     reasonable   doubt   is   a 

guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get 

away with it because truth suffers some infirmity 

when projected through human processes.”    In 

the case of State  of U.P. vs. Anil Singh it was held 

that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial 

merely to see that a guilty man does not escape. 

One is as important as the other. Both are public 

duties   which   the   Judge   has   to  perform.   In   the 

case of State of W.B. vs. Orilal Jaiswal it was held 

that  justice cannot  be made sterile  on the plea 

that   it   is  better   to   let  a  hundred   guilty   escape 

than   punish   an   innocent.   Letting   the   guilty 

escape is not doing justice, according to law. In 

the case of Mohan Singh vs. State of M.P. It was 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

110held  that   the  courts  have  been  removing  chaff 

from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious 

cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these 

clog the very truth.  So long chaff, cloud and dust 

remain,   the   criminals   are   clothed   with   this 

protective layer to receive the benefit  of doubt. 

So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely 

conclude   and   leave   the   case   the   moment 

suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of 

the court, within permissible limit to find out the 

truth,   it  means  on one  hand no innocent  man 

should be punished but on the other hand to see 

no person committing an offence should get scot 

free.   If   in   spite   of   such   effort   suspicion   is   not 

dissolved,it   remains   writ   at   large,   benefit   of 

doubt has to be credited to the accused.”

                     We would like to quote what the Apex Court  has 

observed in the case of State of Panjab vs. Jagir Singh Baljit 

Singh   and   Karam   Singh   (AIR   1973   S.C.   2407).   The   Apex 

observed in para 23 as under:­

“   A   criminal   trial   is   not   like   a   fairy   tale 

wherein   one   is   free   to   give     flight   to   one's 

imagination and phantasy.   It concerns itself 

with the question as to whether the accused 

arraigned   at   the   trial   is   guilty   of   the   crime 

with which he is charged. Crime is   an event 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

111in real life and is the product of interplay of 

different human emotions.  In arriving at the 

conclusion   about   the   guilt   of   the   accused 

charged with the commission of a crime, the 

court   has   to   judge   the   evidence   by   the 

yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic   worth 

and   the   animus  of   witnesses.  Every   case   in 

the final analysis would  have to depend upon 

its  own   facts.  Although  the  benefit  of  every 

reasonable   doubt   should   be   given   to   the 

accused,   the  courts  should  not  at   the  same 

time   reject   evidence     which   is   ex   facie 

trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or 

in the nature of conjectures.”

We   have re­appreciated the evidence bearing in 

mind the above observations  of the Apex Court  and have 

come  to the conclusion that the conviction of the accused 

nos. 1,2,3, 6 to 9 and 11 for the offences for  which they have 

been convicted does not  warrant interference by this court.

42. In our opinion, the prosecution has been able to 

establish   that   accused   1   to   3,     6   to   9   assaulted   Surekha, 

Priyanka, Roshan and Sudhir with sticks, cycle chains, fists 

and kicks blows and caused their injuries which resulted in 

their   death.     All   the   accused   shared   common   object   to 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

112commit murders of Surekha, Priyanka, Roshan and Sudhir. 

The   prosecution   has   also   been   able   to   establish   that   the 

accused nos. 2,3 and 6 to 9  were involved in disposal of the 

dead   bodies   by   carrying   them   in   bullock   carts   towards 

Kandri.

43. We   shall   now   deal   with   Criminal   Appeal   No. 

171/2009   preferred   by   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation 

challenging   acquittal   of   respondents/accused   for   the 

offences under Sections 3(1)(x), 3 (1)(xi),  3(2)(v) and 3(2)(vi) 

of   The   Scheduled   Castes   and   The   Scheduled   Tribes 

(Prevention  of   Atrocities)  Act,   1989   (   “The   Act”   in   short). 

Before   considering   the   rival   submissions   we   deem   it 

appropriate  to quote  the above  referred provisions.    They 

read thus;

“3(1)(x)­­   Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled   Caste   or   a   Scheduled   Tribe­­­intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or   a   Scheduled   Tribe   in   any   place   within public view;

3(1)(xi)—Whoever,  not  being a member  of  a Scheduled   Caste   or   a   Scheduled   Tribe­­ assaults   or   uses   force   to   any   woman belonging   to   a   Scheduled   Caste   or   a 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

113Scheduled  Tribe with intent  to dishonour  or outrage her modesty;

3(2)(v)­­ Whoever,  not being a member of a Scheduled   Caste   or   a   Scheduled   Tribe—commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code   (45   of   1860)   punishable   with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against  a person   or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;

3(2)(vi)—Whoever,  not  being  a member  of  a Scheduled   Caste   or   a   Scheduled   Tribe­ knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence   has   been   committed   under   this Chapter,   causes   any   evidence   of   the commission of that offence to disappear with the intention  of  screening the offender  from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the  offence which he   knows   or   believes   to   be   false,   shall   be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence;

43A. The   learned  trial   Judge  held   that   the  assault  on 

four deceased was not on the ground that they belonged to 

Scheduled Caste but the motive for the commission of the 

offence   was   because   the   accused   felt   that   Surekha   and 

Priyanka falsely  implicated them in the offence  of  assault 

on Siddharth Gajbhiye.  The learned trial Court also placed 

reliance  upon  the Judgment  of  this  Court   in which  it  has 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

114been held that the First Information Report should disclose 

ingredients of offence under the Act failing which crime can 

not be registered or investigated.  No doubt the earlier view 

taken by this Court has been reversed by the Full Bench of 

this court placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex 

Court in the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State 

of Maharashtra and others (supra).  However,  the question 

which   arises   for   consideration   is   whether   even   if   the 

prosecution   evidence   to   which   we   have   made   reference 

hereinabove is accepted the offences under Section 3(1)(x), 

3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v) of the Act are made out against 

the accused. 

43B.               In order to attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Act it is 

necessary that  the accused should   insult  or intimidate   a 

member  of a Scheduled   Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any 

public  place  with   intention  to  humiliate  him/her.     In  the 

present  case,  the whole  object  of  the accused was to take 

revenge against Surekha and Priyanka because the accused 

believed that they were falsely implicated in the assault of 

Siddharth   Gajbhiye   by   them   and   in   the   process   they 

committed not only murders of Surekha and Priyanka but 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

115of Sudhir and Roshan.   Therefore, it is difficult to hold that 

accused intended to insult Surekha or other deceased who 

admittedly were belonging  to Scheduled Caste. 

43C. In our opinion, there was no intention on the part 

of the accused to insult the deceased.   In   order   to   attract 

Section 3(1)(xi)  of the Act, it is necessary that the accused 

not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe  must 

use force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a 

Scheduled  Tribe  with intent  to dishonour  or  outrage    her 

modesty.     In  the  present  case  as  stated  above,  the  whole 

object  was   to   take  revenge  against  Surekha  and  Priyanka 

because   the   accused   believed   that   they   were   falsely 

implicated   and   as   such   it   is   difficult   to   accept   the 

prosecution  version  that  offence  under  Section  3(1)(xi)  of 

the   Act   is   made   out   against   the   accused.     Moreover,   the 

prosecution has not challenged the acquittal of the accused 

for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian 

Penal Code.

43D. In   order   to   attract   Section   3(2)(v)   of   the   Act   a 

person   not   belonging     to   Scheduled   Caste   or   Scheduled 

Tribe     should   commit   offence   under   Indian   Penal   Code 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

116punishable imprisonment for a terms of ten years or more 

against   a   person   or   property   on   the   ground   that   such 

person is  a member  of  a Scheduled Caste  or a Scheduled 

Tribe   or   such   property  belongs   to  such   member.     In   the 

present case, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the 

accused  with  a view to  take  revenge  against  Surekha  and 

Priyanka  assaulted  them  and   family  members  of  Surekha 

causing their death.  Merely because the deceased belong to 

Scheduled   Caste   it   can   not   be   said   that   ingredients   of 

Section  3(2)(v)  of   the  Act  are  made   out.  The  prosecution 

evidence  does  not  establish  that     the  accused  committed 

murder   of   Surekha   and   other   deceased   because   they 

belonged   to   Scheduled   Caste   and,   therefore,   in   our 

considered opinion, ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act 

are not made out against the accused.

43E. In order to attract Section 3(2)(vi) of the Act it is 

necessary   for   the  prosecution   to  prove  that  a  person  not 

being   a   member   of   Scheduled   caste   or   Scheduled   Tribe 

knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has 

been   committed   under   this   chapter   should   cause 

disappearance  of   the  evidence  of   the  commission  of   that 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

117offence  with the  intention  of  screening  the offender  from 

legal punishment  or with intention gives   any information 

respecting   the   offence   which   he   knows   or   believes   to   be 

false.  We have already held that  the offences under Section 

3(1)(x),   3(1)(xi)   and   3(2)(v)   of   the   Act   are   not   made   out 

against  the accused and,  therefore,  necessary sequitur     is 

that the offence under Section 3(2)(vi) of the Act is not made 

out against the accused.

43F. At   this   stage   we   would   like   to   deal   with   the 

authorities   relied   upon   by   Mr.   Khan   in   support   of   his 

submission that the offences under the Scheduled Castes/ 

Scheduled Tribes Act are made out against the accused.  In 

the case of  Ashabai  Machindra Adhagale  (supra)  the Apex 

Court   held   that     merely   because   in   the   FIR   caste   of   the 

accused   is   not   mentioned   the   proceedings   could     be 

quashed   and   whether   the   accused   belongs   to   Scheduled 

Caste/ Scheduled Tribe can be gone into in the course of 

investigation.   In the case of   Swaran Singh and others vs. 

State (2008 CRI.L.J.,  4369)  the Apex Court held that calling 

the member of Scheduled Caste as 'Chamar'  with intent to 

insult or humiliate would amount an offence and whether 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

118there   was     intent   to   insult   or   humiliate     by   using   word 

'Chamar'  would  depend    on the  context     in  which  it  was 

used.     In  Bachcha     vs.   State   of   U.P.   (2008   CRI.L.J.   483) 

Allahabad High Court has held that   Section 3(2)(v) of the 

Act can be pressed into service only for enabling the Court 

to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life and fine when 

person   has   been   found   guilty   of   committing   an   offence 

under IPC which is punishable  with imprisonment  of term 

of ten years or more and the provision does not prescribe a 

substantive sentence.   In   Vidyadharan   vs. State of Kerala 

(2004 CRI. L.J., 605)    it has been held that mere knowledge 

that     the  modesty  of  a  woman  is   likely   to be  outraged   is 

sufficient to prove the offence under Section 354 of IPC and 

intention is not the sole criteria.    It has been further held 

that   the   offence   under   Section   3(1)(xi)   of   the   Act     is   an 

aggravated form of offence under Section 354 IPC.   In our 

considered   opinion,   the   authorities   relied   upon   by   Mr. 

Khan do not advance the case of the prosecution.   On the 

contrary,   the   fact   that   the   CBI   has   not   challenged   the 

acquittal  of the accused for the offence under Section 354 

IPC makes it difficult to uphold the challenge of CBI to the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

119acquittal   of   the   accused   the   offence   punishable   under 

Section 3(1)(xi)  of  the Act  inasmuch  as the offence  under 

Section   3(1)(xi)   is   an   aggravated   form     of   offence   under 

Section 354 of IPC as held in Vidyadharan's case(supra).

43G. We,   therefore,   find   no   substance   in   the   appeal 

filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the 

acquittal   of   the   respondents/   accused   for   the   offences 

punishable under Sections 3(1) (x), 3(1) (xi), 3(2)(v) and 3(2) 

(vi) of the Act.

44. We   shall   now   deal   with   Criminal   Appeal   No. 

170/2009   filed   by   the   CBI   challenging   imposition   of 

sentence of  life imprisonment  on accused nos.1 and 11 on 

the   ground   of   inadequacy.   We   shall   also   deal   with   the 

aspect   whether   death   sentence   awarded   to   accused   nos. 

2,3,6,7,8 and 9 deserves to be confirmed.  The learned Judge 

in paragraph nos. 191 to 217 of the Judgment has dealt with 

the aspect of sentences to be imposed on the accused and 

has made reference to several authorities relied upon by the 

rival parties.  The learned trial Judge has not awarded death 

sentence to accused nos. 1 and 11 on the ground that they 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

120were  aged  23  and  20  years  respectively  and  as  such  they 

were   immature.    The   learned  trial   Judge  has   further  held 

that   they   could   have   been   emotionally   carried     away   by 

presence of their fathers' actions and also could have been 

guided by their fathers. The learned trial court further held 

that   accused   no.1   Gopal   might   have   been   emotionally 

charged   as   his   father   was   beaten   by   Siddharth   Gajbhiye. 

The   learned   trial   Judge  has   further  held   that  both     these 

accused  were  absent   for  disposal  of   the  dead  bodies  and 

they   did   not   see   naked   body   of   Priyanka   with   serious 

injuries.

45. According   to   the   learned   trial   Judge   the 

aggravating   circumstances   against   the   accused   nos.   2,3, 

6,7,8 and 9  are as follows:

1) All the convicts came together at the        

house  of Surekha Bbhotmange to commit 

crime.

2) The accused came with sticks and iron 

chains to commit rioting.

3) All the convicts   formed   an   unlawful 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

121assembly with common object to commit  rioting 

and murders of   Surekha   Bhotmange   and her  

family  members. Then they acted in unison in 

prosecution of common object of their unlawful

assembly.

4) Convicts   were   furious    and        were 

shouting to   search   and   kill   other members of 

family of  Surekha      Bhotmange      after     killing 

Surekha   Bhotmange.

5) Victims  were  unarmed  and two of the 

victims were ladies.

6) Killings  made   one   after the other by 

chasing and surrounding each of the victims.

7) Victims  and   specially Sudhir, Roshan 

and     Priyanka  did  not  cause  any  provocation 

at the time of incident.

8) No   justification    for    killing    Sudhir 

Bhotmange and   Roshan Bhotmange who never 

caused any harm to convicts.

9) All the victims were severely beaten to 

death with many injuries on their persons. 

Thereby  process of death of each of the victims, 

was slow and painful.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

12210) There   was   depravity   in   the   acts of 

convicts  which includes­­­

a)  killing of unarmed Surekha by all the male 

convicts with brutality.

b)  convicts shouted to search for others.

c)  Roshan pleaded his innocence, but he was not 

spared.  He was chased and killed.

d)  Two victims were searched and killed.

e)  Accused were threatening others, so that none 

should come to rescue of victims and thereby 

enjoyed killings.

f)  Accused no.2 Sakru and accused No. 8 Jagdish 

made extra judicial confession without any 

hesitation showing no remorse for committing 

such heinous crime.

11. Convicts acted in revolting manner by 

killing   the  victims  in presence of mob, without 

fear of anyone and acted as if they did heroism.

12. Accused Nos. 2,3,6 to 9 removed clothes 

of Priyanka before disposing her severely injured 

dead  body    and    thereby    wanted  to    get 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

123satisfaction to their sexual eyes  at  such  extreme  

circumstances.

45A. The   learned  trial  court   further  held  that  victims 

were  unarmed. Two of them were women and one of them 

was physically handicapped. One of the victim was aged 19 

years   and   they   were   brutally   assaulted   with   sticks,   cycle 

chains   and   with   kicks   and   fist   blows.     According   to   the 

learned   trial   Judge   the   mitigating     circumstances   are   as 

under:

a) There was no prior conspiracy to kill all 

the four victims;

b) There was   no   caste   hatred   for these 

killings;

c) First Victim Surekha Bhotmange set fire 

to   her   own   cattle   shed,   which   might    have 

provoked the accused to commit the crime;

d) Accused extinguished the fire;

e) Accused claimed that they were falsely 

implicated   in    crime of   beating   of   Siddharth 

Gajbhiye by Surekha and Priyanka;

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:46 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

124f) They   are   ordinary   villagers   with no 

criminal past; and

g) Their families depend on their earnings.

46. In the  case  of  Bachansingh  vs.  State  of  Punjab 

(AIR   1980   Supreme   Court,   898)  the   Apex   Court   has 

observed ; 

i)  The extreme penalty of death may not 

     be    inflicted   except in gravest cases  

     of extreme    culpability;

ii) Before  opting for the death penalty, 

the   circumstances   of   the   offender 

also   require   to   be   taken   into 

consideration   along   with   the 

circumstances of the crime;

iii)Life   imprisonment   is   the   rule   and 

death sentence  is an exception;

iv) A   balance   sheet   of   aggravating   and 

mitigating   circumstances   has   to   be 

drawn   up   and   in   doing   so   the 

mitigating circumstances have to be 

accorded   full   weightage   and   a   just 

balance has to be struck between the 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

125aggravating   and   the   mitigating 

circumstances   before   the   option   is 

exercised. 

47. In Machhi  Singh and others  vs.  State of  Punjab, 

(1983) 3 SCC 470 the Apex Court has held that  for deciding 

whether   the   crime   is   rarest   of   rare,   following   factors   be 

considered which are; i) manner of commission of murder; 

ii)   motive   for   commission   of   murder,   iii)   anti   social   or 

socially abhorrent nature of the crime and iv) magnitude of 

the crime and personality of the victim of murder.

48. The   learned   trial   Judge   in   the   Judgment   has 

mentioned the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to 

which   we   have   already     made   reference.     Insofar   as 

aggravating circumstance  no. 10 ( f ) is concerned, we have 

already disbelieved the extra judicial confessions made by 

accused nos. 2 and 8 and, therefore, the said circumstance 

can   not   be   used   against   the   accused   as   aggravating 

circumstance.

49. After  considering the aggravating and mitigating 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

126circumstances and having regard to the observations made 

in  Bachansingh case (supra) and the factors which are to be 

considered while considering the sentence as laid down in 

Machhisingh's case we are of the  considered opinion  that 

case for awarding death sentence to accused nos. 2,3 and 6 

to   9   is   not   made   out   and,   therefore,   the   accused   nos. 

2,3,6,7,8   and   9   do   not   deserve     death   sentence.     The 

incident had not occurred on account of caste hatred but 

the incident occurred since the accused felt that they were 

falsely   implicated   in   the   crime   of   beating   Siddharth 

Gajbhiye by Surekha and Priyanka.   Moreover, there is no 

evidence   brought   on   record   that   the   accused   have   a 

criminal  record.  Considering  the nature  of  the crime  and 

the circumstances  leading to the commission  of the crime 

and the past record of the accused, we are of the considered 

opinion that accused nos.  2,3,6 to 9 do not deserve death 

sentence. However, having regard to the manner in which 

the four murders were committed we are of the considered 

opinion that  all the convicted accused deserve sentence of 

imprisonment exceeding 14 years. This Court in the case of 

Dipak     Vasant   Kale     vs.   State   of   Maharashtra,   2006   ALL 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

127MR(Cri),     686  set   aside   death   sentence   and   imposed 

sentence   of   life   imprisonment   placing   reliance   upon 

various   Judgments   of   the   Apex   Court   with   a   further 

direction that the accused   should not be released   unless 

he completes  actual term of imprisonment of twenty years. 

In   the   said   Judgment   reliance   was   placed   upon     various 

Judgments of the Apex Court.  The Apex Court in the case of 

Ram Anup Singh and others vs. State of Bihar (2002) 6 SCC, 

686         set  aside  the  death  sentence  awarded  by the  trial 

court  and confirmed  by the High Court  to  the appellants 

and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life with a 

condition that they shall not be released before completing 

actual   term   of   twenty   years   including   the   period   already 

undergone by them.  Similar order was passed by the Apex 

Court in the case of   Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajashthan 

(2001)   6   Supreme   Court   Cases,   296).      In  Jayawant 

Dattatraya   Suryarao   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   (AIR   2002 

Supreme   Court,   143)  the   Apex   Court   set   aside   the   death 

sentence imposed on the appellant and sentenced him to 

undergo imprisonment for life with a further direction that 

the accused   would not be   entitled to premature release. 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

128The Apex Court in the case of  Kamalnath vs. State of Tamil 

Nadu  (2005  Supreme  Court  Cases,  1121)  after  confirming 

the   conviction   of   the   appellant   for   various   offences 

including the murder   held that any remission of sentence 

or amnesty on a special occasion announced by the Central 

or the State Government shall not apply to the  sentence of 

imprisonment imposed on the accused.

In the case of Dilip Tiwari and another vs. State of 

Maharashtra, ( 2010 Cri. L.J. 905, )  the Apex Court set aside 

the   death   sentence   imposed   on   the   appellants     and 

sentenced   them   to   life   imprisonment   with   a   further 

direction   that   two   main   accused   who   had   assaulted 

helpless ladies should not be released unless they complete 

25 years of actual imprisonment.        The Apex Court made 

reference   to   the     earlier   Judgments   in   the   case   of     Haru 

Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2009 AIR SCW 6007) and  in 

the   case   of   Swami   Shradhanand   alias   Murali   Manohar 

Mishra   vs.   State   of   Karnataka   (2008   AIR   SCW   5110)     for 

adopting this course.

Having   regard   to   the   manner   in   which   the 

convicted accused committed the   murder of four persons 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

129including   two persons against whom they had no grudge, 

we are of the considered opinion that although the accused 

do not deserve death sentence, the interest of justice would 

be served by directing   that all the accused should not be 

released    until     they  complete  twenty   five  years  of  actual 

imprisonment   including   the   period   of     imprisonment 

already undergone.

50. The   learned   trial   Judge   awarded   separate 

sentences   on   accused   nos.   1   to   3,   6   to   9   and   11   for 

committing   murders   of   Surekha   Bhotmange,   Sudhir 

Bhotmange, Roshan Bhotmange and Priyanka Bhotmange. 

We do not propose to award separate sentences on the said 

accused   for   committing   murders   of   Surekha   Bhotmange, 

Sudhir   Bhotmange,   Roshan   Bhotmange   and   Priyanka 

Bhotmange.        In out opinion, interest of justice would be 

served   by   sentencing   each   of   the   accused   to     life 

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/­ each in default 

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year subject to 

the   rider   that   each   of   the   accused   shall   undergo   actual 

imprisonment for the period of twenty five years.

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

13051. In the light of the above discussion, we dispose of 

the Reference and the Appeals filed by the accused and CBI 

in terms of the following order.

           (i)       The reference made by the learned trial Judge is 

rejected. Accused nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 11 are sentenced to 

life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/­   each in 

default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with 

further   direction   that   each   of   the   accused   shall   not   be 

released   until   he   completes   twenty   five   years   of   actual 

imprisonment   including   the   period   of   imprisonment 

already undergone.

     (ii)          The conviction of accused nos. 1 to 3, 6 to 9 and 

11   and   the   sentences   imposed   on   them   for   the   offence 

punishable under Section   148 read with Section 149 of the 

Indian   Penal   Code   imposed   by   the   trial   Judge   are 

maintained.

   (iii)        The conviction and sentences imposed on accused 

nos. 2,3, and 6 to 9 for the offence punishable under section 

201 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained.

                   All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently;

            All the accused are entitled to set of  the period of 

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::

Bombay

Hig

h Court

131imprisonment already undergone in terms of Section 428 of 

Cr.P.C..

            The   order   passed   by   the   learned   trial   Judge 

insofar   as   the   disposal   of   the   property   is   concerned   is 

maintained.

           Criminal   Confirmation   Case   No.   4/2008   and 

Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   748/2008,   763/2008,   170/2009   and 

171/2009 stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

           JUDGE                                             JUDGE 

patle  

::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2013 11:54:47 :::