VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE . v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1302-1304 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2011 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. In all these appeals, there are 21 number of appellants who are all convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 336, 427, 506-II, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,

2 1860 (for short the 'IPC') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide his judgment dated 05.02.2010, which is substantially upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 24.01.2011. Judgment of the High Court in the criminal appeals, that were filed by the appellants, allowed the appeals in part thereby altering the charge under Section 307 IPC to Section 324 of the IPC. However, rest of the conviction recorded by the trial court has been maintained. 2. The appellants are the residents of Village Badegaon, Taluka Saoner, Nagpur. Victims of the said crime are also residents of the same village. Persons belonging to the victim's group (known as Deshmukh Group) as well as those who are accused persons (known as Choudhary Group) are the two rival political groups active in the village politics. On 24.10.2002, elections for Village Panchayat, Badegaon took place. The appellants were supporting Samata Party and four of their candidates got elected in the said elections. On the other hand, Deshmukh Group was representing Shetkari Shet Majoor Party and five of their candidates were elected in the said elections. Shetkari Shet Majoor Party was led by Vijay Deshmukh and Samata Party was led by Bhujangrao Choudhary. Two days after the elections i.e. on 26.10.2002, the incident in question took place. 3. As per the prosecution, members of the group of accused persons

3 hatched a conspiracy to eliminate leading members of Deshmukh family for taking revenge of their defeat in Gram Panchayat election and in furtherance of their common object, committed the murder of Ashok Deshmukh, and attempted to commit murder of Vilas Deshmukh, Vivek Deshmukh (PW-9 and PW-8 respectively), assaulted Dinesh Deshmukh, Arun Deshmukh, Prafulla Deshmukh, Sau. Kalpana Deshmukh and Smt. Kausabai Choudhary (PW-6, PW-7, PW-13, PW-10 and PW-11 respectively), pelted stones on the houses of Deorao Nakhale and Bhimrao Nakhale (PW-12 and PW-16 respectively) and damaged the scooter of PW-4 Sushil Deshmukh. The incident was witnessed by seven injured witnesses and four eyewitnesses. 4. The prosecution examined, altogether, 26 witnesses. Out of these, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-13 were the injured eyewitnesses and PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-18 were eyewitnesses who did not suffer any injury in the incident. Other witnesses are the doctors (who examined the injured persons and conducted postmortem of the deceased Ashok Deshmukh), Investigating Officer, Executive Magistrate, Panch and other witnesses. On the other hand, defence examined 16 witnesses in all. 5. It may be pointed out that there was no dispute that death of Ashok Deshmukh was homicidal in nature and the testimony of the doctors on

5 to 30 for various offences giving different sentence ranging from one month to six months under Sections 324, 336, 427, 506-II and 148 IPC. Insofar as conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC is concerned, rigorous imprisonment for five years was awarded and for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, life imprisonment was inflicted upon the aforesaid convicted persons. The remaining accused persons were acquitted. Findings of the trial court are summarised by the High Court in the impugned judgment in the following manner: (a) Accused No. 4 Pandhari N. Khandal, Accused No. 10 Vijay P. Thakre, Accused No.13 Kailas Bhoyar, Accused No. 14 Ashok S. Pimparamule, Accused No. 18 Narayan Kothe, Accused No. 19 Baban Karale, Accused No. 20 Marotrao Gawande, Accused No. 23 Chandrashekhar Khorgade and Accused No. 30 Dilip S. Chachane were identified to be present and participating in various acts of assault. (b) The accused possessed, and have used deadly weapons, such as big size sticks and medium size sticks (Ubharis and Zodpas etc.) (c) The accused constituted unlawful assembly. (d) The witnesses depose that the members of the unlawful assembly of accused persons proclaiming that they wanted to eliminate the main persons from Deshmukh family, because of the acrimony which they had due to defeat in the Panchayat election.

6 (e) Aspects, namely motive and intention, both were proved. (f) The testimonies of the witnesses were adequate to prove the commission of offence charged and stood to the test of trustworthiness. The omissions relied upon by the defence were neither crucial or material, nor were omissions at all. 8. State as well as the complainant had filed the appeals against those who were acquitted, which were dismissed by the High Court. The High Court noted that defence of the appellants was that it was a case of stampede, though no attempt was made to explain as to how the stampede could have occurred. The fact of homicidal death and other injuries were not disputed. The enmity between the parties and commotion were also not in dispute. Therefore, one has to proceed on the basis that incident in question took place wherein certain persons belonging to Choudhary Group attacked the persons of Deshmukh family. The most vital question that becomes important in these circumstances is as to whether unlawful assembly had been formed by the convicted persons with common object of causing death of Ashok who lost his life in the said attack. The High Court has taken note of the injuries as revealed in the postmortem report which the deceased suffered and noted that the cause of death is one head injury. The High Court further summarised his conclusion in para 50 of the judgment which reads as under:

7 “50. The fact that the evidence brought by the prosecution, tested from any point of view and permutations and combinations leads to the conclusion that:- (1) It was an unlawful assembly. (2) It gathered after pre-conceived common object of eliminating the members of Deshmukh family and group. (3) The assembly was equipped with deadly weapons, such as Ubharis, Zodpas etc. (4) Unlawful assembly dealt a fatal assault on Ashok. (5) Unlawful assembly dealt a violent and brutal assault on other injured witnesses, namely PWs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 (Dinesh Deshmukh, Arun Bhaurao Deshmukh, Vivek Nanaji Deshmukh, Vilas Bhauraoji Deshmukh, Kalpana Vijayrao Deshmukh, Kausalyabai A. Chaudhari and Praful Uttamrao Deshmukh respectively), and did stone pelting and damaged the houses of PW 12 Deorao Nakhale and PW 16 Bhimrao Nakhale, and damaged the scooter of PW 4 Sushil Deshmukh.” 9. Questioning the propriety of the aforesaid approach adopted by the High Court, Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No.1300 of 2011 which is filed by four appellants, submitted that large number of persons were implicated as accused persons and the manner in which the incident took place, it was difficult for the prosecution witnesses to identify as many as 30 persons and the possibility of implicating even those who were not present at the time of the incident, cannot be ruled out, particularly when there was political rivalry between the two groups. He further submitted that motive for false implication gets supported by the fact that in the elections which took place two

8 days before the incident, five persons from Deshmukh Group were elected whereas from Choudhary Group, lesser number of persons i.e. four persons were elected. It was submitted that Deshmukh Group was more dominating group and in these circumstances, there was no question of taking any revenge. He also submitted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR which could further lend credence to the defence of the appellants that many were falsely roped in. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any conspiracy or common object and, thus, the ingredients of provision of Section 149 IPC could not be taken and the appellants were wrongly convicted under the said provision. In nutshell, his submission was fourfold on the following aspects: (1) The entire evidence in the case leaves a room for doubt with regard to the identification of accused persons. This is so, because of a large number of accused persons (30) and even 10-15 more alleged to be present at the time of the incident. Added to this is the fact that their identification is alleged to have taken place in the moonlight, no TIP thereafter, and identification only in court. (2) Delay in lodging FIR, utilized for deliberations about how to implicate all political opponents. (3) There is a clear motive for false implication on account of rivalry arising out of Panchayat elections in which the accused party had won four seats and complainant party won five out of nine seats. The

9 complainant, thus, in the absence of any evidence of conspiracy had all the opportunity for false implication. (4) In the absence of any evidence of conspiracy, the accused at worst can be held responsible for their individual acts and others against whom there are no specific allegations cannot be held liable as they may be mere spectators, the incident having been taken place on a public road. 10. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel referred to various case laws as well. Other counsel appearing for remaining appellants adopted the submissions of Mr. Tulsi. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relied upon the discussion contained in the judgments of the courts below in support of the prosecution case with the submission that the appellants were rightly convicted and there was no reason to interfere with the same. 12. After going through the evidence in detail, we are of the opinion that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to conclude that any conspiracy was hatched by the appellants with common object to cause the death of Ashok or the appellants are charged members of the other group with such an objective. Even as per the prosecution, the convicted persons were not carrying any deadly weapons. They were armed with Ubharis which are small sticks and Ubharis used by the farmers for disciplining the bullocks. This itself would be sufficient to negate the prosecution

10 version that there was a conspiracy and common object to cause fatal harm to the members of the opposite group. At the most, the appellants wanted to inflict some physical harm to the members of the Deshmukh family in order to 'teach them a lesson'. Significantly, while discussing the charge under Section 307 IPC, the High Court itself has gone by the nature of injuries inflicted on other persons and concluded that there was no intention to cause death of any of those who got injured at the time of the incident. However, while dealing with the case of death of Ashok, the High Court went by the injuries on his person and on that basis concluded that there was a premeditative motive on the part of the appellants to murder him. Except the above, there is no clear evidence of any conspiracy or common objective. In these circumstances, the accused persons, at worst, could be held responsible for their individual acts. 13. Section 149 IPC reads as under: “ 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” 14. As is clear from the plain language, in order to attract the provision of the Section, following ingredients are to be essentially established.

11 (i) There must be an unlawful assembly. (ii) Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly. (iii) Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed. If these three elements are satisfied, then only a conviction under Section 149, I.P.C., may be substantiated, and not otherwise. None of the Sections 147, 148 and 149 applies to a person who is merely present in any unlawful assembly, unless he actively participates in the rioting or does some overt act with the necessary criminal intention or shares the common object of the unlawful assembly. 15. In the facts of the present case, we find that common object of the assembly, even if it is presumed that there was an unlawful assembly, has not been proved. The expression 'in prosecution of the common object' occurring in this Section postulates that the act must be one which have been done with a view to accomplish the common object attributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. This expression is to be strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain common object. It must be immediately connected with common object by virtue of nature of object. In the instant case, even the evidence is not laid on this aspect. As pointed out above, the courts below were influenced by the fact that one of the injuries on the person of Ashok was on his head

13 murder.” 17. We would also like to quote the following passage from Thakore Dolji Vanvirji & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2 : “ 3. …Now the question is whether all the accused would constructively be liable for an offence of murder by virtue of Section 149 IPC. So far A-1 is concerned, it is the consistent version of all the eyewitnesses that he dealt a fatal blow on the head with a sword and the medical evidence shows that there was a fracture of skull and the blow must have been very forceful because even the brain was injured. Therefore, he was directly responsible for the death of the deceased and the High Court has rightly convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Now coming to the rest of the accused, all the eyewitnesses have made an omnibus allegation against them. Even A-2, according to the eyewitnesses, gave only one blow and that the remaining accused gave stick blows. All these injuries were not serious and were simple. The injury attributed to A-2 was on the cheek and the doctor did not say that it caused any damage. So it must also be held to be a simple injury. Then we find only a bruise and an abrasion on the right arm and some bruises on the back. These injuries did not result in any internal injuries. There was not even a fracture of rib. Therefore they must also be simple injuries. It is only injury No. 1 which was serious and proved fatal. Therefore the question is whether under these circumstances common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the deceased and whether every member of the unlawful assembly shared the same? No doubt Section 149 IPC is wide in its sweep but in fixing the membership of the unlawful assembly and in inferring the common object, various circumstances also have to be taken into consideration. Having regard to the omnibus allegation, we think it is not safe to convict every one of them for the offence of murder by applying Section 149 IPC. On a careful examination of the entire prosecution case and the surrounding circumstances, we think the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to cause grievous 2 1993 Supp (2) SCC 534

14 hurt. But A-1 acted in his own individual manner and caused one injury with the sword which proved fatal.” 18. No doubt, in the scuffle that took place, one blow came to be inflicted on the head of Ashok which injury proved fatal. However, this by itself cannot be the reason to conclude that there was any intention to commit his murder. If 30 persons had attacked the members of Deshmukh Group, there are no injuries on the vital parts of other persons who got injured in the said episode. Ashok also suffered only one injury on his head and no other injury is on vital part of his body. Had there been any common objective to cause murder of the members of Deshmukh Group, there would have been many injuries on deceased Ashok as well as other injured persons on the vital parts of their body. On the contrary, it has come on record that the injuries suffered by other persons are on their back or lower limbs i.e. legs etc. 19. We, thus, hold that there was no preconceived common object of eliminating the members of Deshmukh family and group and the assembly was not acquired with any deadly weapons either, as held by the High Court. Even the High Court has not pointed out any such evidence. These findings are hereby set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is converted into Section 304-II IPC for which the appellants are sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of seven years each. We were informed that all the appellants have

15 already undergone sentence of seven years or more. If that is correct, these appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeals are allowed partly in the aforesaid terms. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (R.K. AGRAWAL) NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 02, 2017.

16 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA (FOR JUDGMENT) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 Date : 02/02/2017 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Akash Kadade, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai,Adv. Mr. Somnath Padhan, Adv. Neelmani Pani, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal. The appeals are allowed partly in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

ÊÈ1NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2011VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. .....APPELLANT(S)VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA .....RESPONDENT(S)W I T HCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2011CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1302-1304 OF 2011CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2011CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2011ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2011J U D G M E N TA.K. SIKRI, J.In all these appeals, there are 21 number of appellants who are allconvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324,336, 427, 506-II, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,21860 (for short the 'IPC') by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur videhis judgment dated 05.02.2010, which is substantially upheld by the HighCourt vide impugned judgment dated 24.01.2011. Judgment of the HighCourt in the criminal appeals, that were filed by the appellants, allowedthe appeals in part thereby altering the charge under Section 307 IPC toSection 324 of the IPC. However, rest of the conviction recorded by thetrial court has been maintained. 2. The appellants are the residents of Village Badegaon, Taluka Saoner,Nagpur. Victims of the said crime are also residents of the same village.Persons belonging to the victim's group (known as Deshmukh Group) aswell as those who are accused persons (known as Choudhary Group)are the two rival political groups active in the village politics. On24.10.2002, elections for Village Panchayat, Badegaon took place. Theappellants were supporting Samata Party and four of their candidatesgot elected in the said elections. On the other hand, Deshmukh Groupwas representing Shetkari Shet Majoor Party and five of their candidateswere elected in the said elections. Shetkari Shet Majoor Party was ledby Vijay Deshmukh and Samata Party was led by BhujangraoChoudhary. Two days after the elections i.e. on 26.10.2002, the incidentin question took place. 3. As per the prosecution, members of the group of accused persons3hatched a conspiracy to eliminate leading members of Deshmukh familyfor taking revenge of their defeat in Gram Panchayat election and infurtherance of their common object, committed the murder of AshokDeshmukh, and attempted to commit murder of Vilas Deshmukh, VivekDeshmukh (PW-9 and PW-8 respectively), assaulted Dinesh Deshmukh,Arun Deshmukh, Prafulla Deshmukh, Sau. Kalpana Deshmukh and Smt.Kausabai Choudhary (PW-6, PW-7, PW-13, PW-10 and PW-11respectively), pelted stones on the houses of Deorao Nakhale andBhimrao Nakhale (PW-12 and PW-16 respectively) and damaged thescooter of PW-4 Sushil Deshmukh. The incident was witnessed byseven injured witnesses and four eyewitnesses. 4. The prosecution examined, altogether, 26 witnesses. Out of these,PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-13 were the injuredeyewitnesses and PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-18 were eyewitnesseswho did not suffer any injury in the incident. Other witnesses are thedoctors (who examined the injured persons and conducted postmortemof the deceased Ashok Deshmukh), Investigating Officer, ExecutiveMagistrate, Panch and other witnesses. On the other hand, defenceexamined 16 witnesses in all. 5. It may be pointed out that there was no dispute that death of AshokDeshmukh was homicidal in nature and the testimony of the doctors on

4this account is not under challenge. However, in respect of those whosuffered injuries, dispute was as to whether injuries were such that therewas an attempt to murder these persons. The trial court convicted theaccused persons under Section 307 IPC accepting the version of theprosecution. However, the High Court in the impugned judgment hasconverted the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC.Since, neither the State nor the victim has challenged this part, theacquittal of appellants under Section 307 IPC has attained finality. 6. We may also mention at this stage itself that there was no seriouschallenge by the learned counsel, who appeared for the appellants, atthe time of arguments to the conviction of the appellants under Section324 IPC. Even otherwise we find that the conviction under Section 324IPC warrants to be sustained. In view thereof, the only question is as towhether appellants could be convicted of offence under Section 302 IPCalong with Section 148 read with Section 149 IPC. Discussionhereinafter would be focussed on this aspect. 7. It may be mentioned that in all 30 persons were charged under thevarious Sections mentioned above. As pointed out above, afteranalysing the evidence of the prosecution as well as that of the defenceand other material produced on record, the learned Additional SessionsJudge convicted accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 to 25 and 285to 30 for various offences giving different sentence ranging from onemonth to six months under Sections 324, 336, 427, 506-II and 148 IPC.Insofar as conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC isconcerned, rigorous imprisonment for five years was awarded and foroffence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, lifeimprisonment was inflicted upon the aforesaid convicted persons. Theremaining accused persons were acquitted. Findings of the trial courtare summarised by the High Court in the impugned judgment in thefollowing manner:(a) Accused No. 4 Pandhari N. Khandal, Accused No. 10 Vijay P.Thakre, Accused No.13 Kailas Bhoyar, Accused No. 14 Ashok S.Pimparamule, Accused No. 18 Narayan Kothe, Accused No. 19 BabanKarale, Accused No. 20 Marotrao Gawande, Accused No. 23Chandrashekhar Khorgade and Accused No. 30 Dilip S. Chachane wereidentified to be present and participating in various acts of assault.(b) The accused possessed, and have used deadly weapons, such asbig size sticks and medium size sticks (Ubharis and Zodpas etc.)(c) The accused constituted unlawful assembly.(d) The witnesses depose that the members of the unlawful assemblyof accused persons proclaiming that they wanted to eliminate the mainpersons from Deshmukh family, because of the acrimony which they haddue to defeat in the Panchayat election.6(e) Aspects, namely motive and intention, both were proved. (f) The testimonies of the witnesses were adequate to prove thecommission of offence charged and stood to the test of trustworthiness.The omissions relied upon by the defence were neither crucial ormaterial, nor were omissions at all.8. State as well as the complainant had filed the appeals against thosewho were acquitted, which were dismissed by the High Court. The HighCourt noted that defence of the appellants was that it was a case ofstampede, though no attempt was made to explain as to how thestampede could have occurred. The fact of homicidal death and otherinjuries were not disputed. The enmity between the parties andcommotion were also not in dispute. Therefore, one has to proceed onthe basis that incident in question took place wherein certain personsbelonging to Choudhary Group attacked the persons of Deshmukhfamily. The most vital question that becomes important in thesecircumstances is as to whether unlawful assembly had been formed bythe convicted persons with common object of causing death of Ashokwho lost his life in the said attack. The High Court has taken note of theinjuries as revealed in the postmortem report which the deceasedsuffered and noted that the cause of death is one head injury. The HighCourt further summarised his conclusion in para 50 of the judgment

which reads as under:7â¬ S50. The fact that the evidence brought by theprosecution, tested from any point of view andpermutations and combinations leads to the conclusionthat:-(1) It was an unlawful assembly.(2) It gathered after pre-conceived common object ofeliminating the members of Deshmukh family and group.(3) The assembly was equipped with deadly weapons,such as Ubharis, Zodpas etc.(4) Unlawful assembly dealt a fatal assault on Ashok.(5) Unlawful assembly dealt a violent and brutal assaulton other injured witnesses, namely PWs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11 and 13 (Dinesh Deshmukh, Arun BhauraoDeshmukh, Vivek Nanaji Deshmukh, Vilas BhauraojiDeshmukh, Kalpana Vijayrao Deshmukh, KausalyabaiA. Chaudhari and Praful Uttamrao Deshmukhrespectively), and did stone pelting and damaged thehouses of PW 12 Deorao Nakhale and PW 16 BhimraoNakhale, and damaged the scooter of PW 4 SushilDeshmukh.â¬ \2359. Questioning the propriety of the aforesaid approach adopted by the HighCourt, Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing in Criminal AppealNo.1300 of 2011 which is filed by four appellants, submitted that largenumber of persons were implicated as accused persons and the mannerin which the incident took place, it was difficult for the prosecutionwitnesses to identify as many as 30 persons and the possibility ofimplicating even those who were not present at the time of the incident,cannot be ruled out, particularly when there was political rivalry betweenthe two groups. He further submitted that motive for false implicationgets supported by the fact that in the elections which took place two8days before the incident, five persons from Deshmukh Group wereelected whereas from Choudhary Group, lesser number of persons i.e.four persons were elected. It was submitted that Deshmukh Group wasmore dominating group and in these circumstances, there was noquestion of taking any revenge. He also submitted that there was adelay in lodging the FIR which could further lend credence to thedefence of the appellants that many were falsely roped in. Furthermore,there was no evidence of any conspiracy or common object and, thus,the ingredients of provision of Section 149 IPC could not be taken andthe appellants were wrongly convicted under the said provision. Innutshell, his submission was fourfold on the following aspects: (1) The entire evidence in the case leaves a room for doubt with regard tothe identification of accused persons. This is so, because of a largenumber of accused persons (30) and even 10-15 more alleged to bepresent at the time of the incident. Added to this is the fact that theiridentification is alleged to have taken place in the moonlight, no TIPthereafter, and identification only in court. (2) Delay in lodging FIR, utilized for deliberations about how to implicate allpolitical opponents.(3) There is a clear motive for false implication on account of rivalry arisingout of Panchayat elections in which the accused party had won fourseats and complainant party won five out of nine seats. The9complainant, thus, in the absence of any evidence of conspiracy had allthe opportunity for false implication.(4) In the absence of any evidence of conspiracy, the accused at worst canbe held responsible for their individual acts and others against whomthere are no specific allegations cannot be held liable as they may bemere spectators, the incident having been taken place on a public road. 10. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel referred tovarious case laws as well. Other counsel appearing for remainingappellants adopted the submissions of Mr. Tulsi.

11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relied upon thediscussion contained in the judgments of the courts below in support ofthe prosecution case with the submission that the appellants were rightlyconvicted and there was no reason to interfere with the same.12. After going through the evidence in detail, we are of the opinion that theprosecution evidence is not sufficient to conclude that any conspiracywas hatched by the appellants with common object to cause the death ofAshok or the appellants are charged members of the other group withsuch an objective. Even as per the prosecution, the convicted personswere not carrying any deadly weapons. They were armed with Ubhariswhich are small sticks and Ubharis used by the farmers for discipliningthe bullocks. This itself would be sufficient to negate the prosecution10version that there was a conspiracy and common object to cause fatalharm to the members of the opposite group. At the most, the appellantswanted to inflict some physical harm to the members of the Deshmukhfamily in order to 'teach them a lesson'. Significantly, while discussingthe charge under Section 307 IPC, the High Court itself has gone by thenature of injuries inflicted on other persons and concluded that there wasno intention to cause death of any of those who got injured at the time ofthe incident. However, while dealing with the case of death of Ashok, theHigh Court went by the injuries on his person and on that basisconcluded that there was a premeditative motive on the part of theappellants to murder him. Except the above, there is no clear evidenceof any conspiracy or common objective. In these circumstances, theaccused persons, at worst, could be held responsible for their individualacts. 13. Section 149 IPC reads as under:â¬ S 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty ofoffence committed in prosecution of common object.â¬ Ifan offence is committed by any member of an unlawfulassembly in prosecution of the common object of thatassembly, or such as the members of that assemblyknew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of thatobject, every person who, at the time of the committingof that offence, is a member of the same assembly, isguilty of that offence.â¬ \23514. As is clear from the plain language, in order to attract the provision ofthe Section, following ingredients are to be essentially established.11(i) There must be an unlawful assembly.(ii) Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly.(iii) Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the commonobject of the assembly; or must be such as the members of theassembly knew to be likely to be committed. If these three elements are satisfied, then only a conviction underSection 149, I.P.C., may be substantiated, and not otherwise. None ofthe Sections 147, 148 and 149 applies to a person who is merelypresent in any unlawful assembly, unless he actively participates in therioting or does some overt act with the necessary criminal intention orshares the common object of the unlawful assembly. 15. In the facts of the present case, we find that common object of theassembly, even if it is presumed that there was an unlawful assembly,has not been proved. The expression 'in prosecution of the commonobject' occurring in this Section postulates that the act must be onewhich have been done with a view to accomplish the common objectattributed to the members of the unlawful assembly. This expression isto be strictly construed as equivalent to in order to attain common object.It must be immediately connected with common object by virtue ofnature of object. In the instant case, even the evidence is not laid onthis aspect. As pointed out above, the courts below were influenced bythe fact that one of the injuries on the person of Ashok was on his head

12which became the cause of death and from this, common object isinferred. 16. In Mukteshwar Rai v. State of Bihar 1, the accused persons werealleged to have formed an unlawful assembly, gathered in a village andset some houses on fire and ransacked. Two persons died as they gotburnt and two could not be traced. This Court agreed with the finding ofthe High Court as to formation of the unlawful assembly. But as to thefinding that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commitmurder took somewhat a different view and observed:â¬ S The specific overt acts attributed to A-1 and five otherswho are said to have actively participated in setting thefire and thrown some of the victims into the fire standdisbelieved. It may also be noted that none of the P.Ws.Is injured and we find from the judgment of the HighCourt that none of the witnesses say that any one ofthese appellants were armed. The learned Judge hasextracted the incriminating part in each of the witnessesagainst these appellants. It stated that these accusedwere identified by those respective witnesses mentionedtherein in discussing the case against each of thaccused. There is nowhere any mention that any one ofthese appellants were armed. In such a situation thequestion is whether these appellants also had acommon object of committing the murder. We havegiven earnest consideration to this aspect. Taking ageneral picture of the case and after a close scrutiny ofthe evidence we find that two persons were charred todeath. This must have been the result of setting fire tothose houses. With regards the other two missingpersons it cannot be concluded that they were murderedin the absence of any iota of evidence. Under thesecircumstances we find it extremely difficult to hold that acommon object of the unlawful assembly was to commit11992 Supp (1) SCC 72713murder.â¬ \23517. We would also like to quote the following passage from Thakore DoljiVanvirji & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2:â¬ S 3. â¬ ¦Now the question is whether all the accused wouldconstructively be liable for an offence of murder byvirtue of Section 149 IPC. So far A-1 is concerned, it isthe consistent version of all the eyewitnesses that hedealt a fatal blow on the head with a sword and themedical evidence shows that there was a fracture ofskull and the blow must have been very forcefulbecause even the brain was injured. Therefore, he wasdirectly responsible for the death of the deceased andthe High Court has rightly convicted him under Section302 IPC. Now coming to the rest of the accused, all theeyewitnesses have made an omnibus allegation againstthem. Even A-2, according to the eyewitnesses, gaveonly one blow and that the remaining accused gavestick blows. All these injuries were not serious and weresimple. The injury attributed to A-2 was on the cheekand the doctor did not say that it caused any damage.So it must also be held to be a simple injury. Then wefind only a bruise and an abrasion on the right arm andsome bruises on the back. These injuries did not resultin any internal injuries. There was not even a fracture ofrib. Therefore they must also be simple injuries. It is onlyinjury No. 1 which was serious and proved fatal.Therefore the question is whether under thesecircumstances common object of the unlawful assembly

was to cause the death of the deceased and whetherevery member of the unlawful assembly shared thesame? No doubt Section 149 IPC is wide in its sweepbut in fixing the membership of the unlawful assemblyand in inferring the common object, variouscircumstances also have to be taken into consideration.Having regard to the omnibus allegation, we think it isnot safe to convict every one of them for the offence ofmurder by applying Section 149 IPC. On a carefulexamination of the entire prosecution case and thesurrounding circumstances, we think the common objectof the unlawful assembly was only to cause grievous21993 Supp (2) SCC 53414hurt. But A-1 acted in his own individual manner andcaused one injury with the sword which proved fatal.â¬ \23518. No doubt, in the scuffle that took place, one blow came to be inflicted onthe head of Ashok which injury proved fatal. However, this by itselfcannot be the reason to conclude that there was any intention to commithis murder. If 30 persons had attacked the members of DeshmukhGroup, there are no injuries on the vital parts of other persons who gotinjured in the said episode. Ashok also suffered only one injury on hishead and no other injury is on vital part of his body. Had there been anycommon objective to cause murder of the members of DeshmukhGroup, there would have been many injuries on deceased Ashok as wellas other injured persons on the vital parts of their body. On the contrary,it has come on record that the injuries suffered by other persons are ontheir back or lower limbs i.e. legs etc. 19. We, thus, hold that there was no preconceived common object ofeliminating the members of Deshmukh family and group and theassembly was not acquired with any deadly weapons either, as held bythe High Court. Even the High Court has not pointed out any suchevidence. These findings are hereby set aside. The conviction of theappellants under Section 302 IPC is converted into Section 304-II IPCfor which the appellants are sentenced for rigorous imprisonment ofseven years each. We were informed that all the appellants have15already undergone sentence of seven years or more. If that is correct,these appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any othercase. Appeals are allowed partly in the aforesaid terms..............................................J.(A.K. SIKRI).............................................J.(R.K. AGRAWAL)NEW DELHI;FEBRUARY 02, 2017.16ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA(FOR JUDGMENT) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 1305/2011VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)WITHCrl.A. No. 1300/2011Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011Crl.A. No. 1306/2011Crl.A. No. 1307/2011Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 Date : 02/02/2017 These appeals were called on for pronouncement ofjudgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Akash Kadade, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai,Adv.Mr. Somnath Padhan, Adv. Neelmani Pani, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri pronounced the judgment of theBench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.The appeals are allowed partly in terms of the signednon-reportable judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed ofaccordingly.(Ashwani Thakur) (Mala Kumari Sharma ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No. 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for bail) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 12/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Appellant(s) Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Court Master Court Master

fITEM NO.101 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No. 1305/2011VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail)WITHCrl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report)Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011Crl.A. No. 1306/2011Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With Office Report)Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 12/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWALFor Appellant(s) Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv.Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv.Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, Adv.Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv.Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.Mr. Rabin Majumder, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard.Arguments concluded.Judgment reserved. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No. 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 11/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Appellant(s) Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv. Ms. A nagha S. Desai, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard in part. List the appeals tomorrow, 12 th January, 2017. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Court Master Court Master

jITEM NO.107 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No. 1305/2011VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for bail)WITHCrl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report)Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011Crl.A. No. 1306/2011Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With Office Report)Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 11/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWALFor Appellant(s) Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.Mr. Akash Kakade, Adv.Ms. A nagha S. Desai, Adv.Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, Adv.Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv.Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.Mr. Rabin Majumder, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard in part.List the appeals tomorrow, 12 th January, 2017. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 18770/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1307/2011 MAROTI TATYAJI GAWANDE & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 14/11/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Adv. for Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Crl.M.P. No. 18770 of 2014 for grant of bail is rejected. (PARDEEP KUMAR) (JASWINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

l ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 18770/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1307/2011 MAROTI TATYAJI GAWANDE & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 14/11/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Adv. for Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Crl.M.P. No. 18770 of 2014 for grant of bail is rejected. (PARDEEP KUMAR) (JASWINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byPardeep KumarDate: 2014.11.1417:29:18 SASTReason:

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 18770/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1307/2011 MAROTI TATYAJI GAWANDE & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 31/10/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Shankar Chillarge, Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let the matter be listed before a Bench of which one of us Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit is not the Member. The Registry is directed to do the needful. (RAJESH DHAM) (RENUKA SADANA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION IIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 18770 OF 2014 (Application for Bail) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2011 MAROTI TATYAJI GAWANDE & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT This is an appeal by way of Special Leave granted vide this Court’s Order dated 4 th July, 2014. Sole Respondent State is represented through Mr. A.P. Mayee, Advocate. Original Records of the High Court as well as the Trial Court have been received in the matter and are available in Court room for reference. It is submitted that for non filing of additional documents by counsel for the parties, the matter was listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 15 th October, 2014 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Despite Registrar’s Court order dt.3.9.2014 additional documents have not been filed by the parties. Registry to process for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules.” It is submitted that Counsel for the appellant has filed application for bail which is registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 18770 of 2014 and the same has been tagged with Criminal Appeal Paper Books. The application abovementioned is, therefore, listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office Report. DATED this the 28 th day of October, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C1/rc

ð ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 18770/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1307/2011 MAROTI TATYAJI GAWANDE & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 31/10/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr Shankar Chillarge, Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Let the matter be listed before a Bench of which one of us Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit is not the Member. The Registry is directed to do the needful. (RAJESH DHAM) (RENUKA SADANA)Signature Not Verified COURT MASTER COURT MASTERDigitally signed byRajesh DhamDate: 2014.10.3116:48:45 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Criminal Appeal No(s). 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 15/10/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr Vikram Bochawat, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr A Selvin Raja,Adv. Mr A.P.Mayee, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite Registrar's Court order dt.3.9.2014 additional documents have not been filed by the parties. Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

R ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Criminal Appeal No(s). 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 15/10/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr Vikram Bochawat, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr A Selvin Raja,Adv. Mr A.P.Mayee, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Despite Registrar's Court order dt.3.9.2014 additional documents have not been filed by the parties.Signature Not Verified Registry to process for listing before the Hon'ble CourtDigitally signed byHema Joshi as per rules.Date: 2014.10.1716:47:32 ISTReason: (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 17681/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1300/2011 SUDHIR ANNAJI CHOUDHARY & ORS. Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 26/09/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Appellant(s) / For Applicant(s) Mr. Ramkishor Lambat, Adv. Mr. Vikram Bachawat, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17681 of 2014 for bail is rejected. (RAJESH DHAM) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 17681/2014 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1300/2011 SUDHIR ANNAJI CHOUDHARY & ORS. Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 26/09/2014 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Appellant(s)/ For Applicant(s) Mr. Ramkishor Lambat, Adv. Mr. Vikram Bachawat, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17681 of 2014 for bail is rejected. (RAJESH DHAM) (RENU DIWAN)Signature Not Verified COURT MASTER COURT MASTERDigitally signed byRajesh DhamDate: 2014.09.2617:59:38 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.36 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Criminal Appeal No(s). 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 03/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the parties for filing additional documents, if any. List again on 15.10.2014. (PANKAJ BHANDARI) Registrar

l ITEM NO.36 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR PANKAJ BHANDARI Criminal Appeal No(s). 1305/2011 VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) WITH Crl.A. No. 1300/2011 (With appln.(s) for bail and Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1302-1304/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1306/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1307/2011 (With Office Report) Crl.A. No. 1308/2011 (With Office Report) Date : 03/09/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the parties for filing additional documents, if any. List again on 15.10.2014.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2014.09.08 (PANKAJ BHANDARI)12:35:04 ISTReason: Registrar

:ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRL.M.P. NO.11393 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2011SUDHIR ANNAJI CHOUDHARY & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 02/07/2012 This matter was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALEFor Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Sachin J. Patil, Adv. For Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RPrayer for bail is rejected.|(Neetu Khajuria) |(Sneh Bala Mehra) Court ||Sr.P.A. |Master |

\236ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3330/2011(From the judgement and order dated 24/01/2011 in CRLA No. 183/2010of the HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgmentexemption from filing O.T. and bail)WITHSLP(Crl) NO. 3345 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgmentexemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3349 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgmentexemption from filing O.T., bail, permission to file addl. documentsand office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3390 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgmentexemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3392 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgmentexemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)SLP(R)...CRLMP NO. 9571-9573 of 2011(With appln. for condonation of delay in filing the SLP and officereport)Date: 04/07/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Sudheer Voditel, Adv. for Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. (NP) ......2/- : 2 : UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned in SLP (Crl.) Nos....CrlMP 9571-9573/2011. Leave granted. Hearing expedited. (N.S.K. Kamesh) (S.S.R. Krishna) Court Master Court Master

ZITEM NO.23+42 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3330/2011(From the judgement and order dated 24/01/2011 in CRLA No. 183/2010 ofthe HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned Judgment,exemption from filing O.T. and bail)WITHSLP(Crl) NO. 3345 of 2011(With appln. for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment,exemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3349 of 2011(With appln. for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment,exemption from filing O.T., bail, permission to file addl. documetnsand office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3390 of 2011(With appln. for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment,exemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3392 of 2011(With appln. for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment,exemption from filing O.T., bail and office report)SLP(CRL.)...CRLMP NO. 9571-9573 of 2011(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 06/05/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. L.D. Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.For Respondent(s) .....2/- : 2 : UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the petitioners has circulated a letterpraying for time for filing certain additional document. Put up after the ensuing summer vacation. (N.S.K. Kamesh) (S.S.R. Krishna) Court Master Court Master

\210ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3330/2011(From the judgement and order dated 24/01/2011 in CRLA No.183/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment,exemption from filing O.T.,bailWITH SLP(Crl) NO. 3345 of 2011With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment,exemption from filing O.T.,bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3349 of 2011With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment,exemption from filing O.T.,bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3390 of 2011With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment,exemption from filing O.T.,bail and office report)SLP(Crl) NO. 3392 of 2011With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugnedJudgment,exemption from filing O.T.,bail and office report)Date: 29/04/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Put up next week.(Neetu Khajuria) (S.S.R. Krishna) Sr.P.A. Court Master

VIJAY PANDURANG THAKRE . v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Full Judgment Text

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status