State of Maharashtra vs Bhaurao s/o Doma Udan and others

Advertisements

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

The respondents/accused, Ganpat Mahadeo Yelore, who passed away, and other members of his family, including his better half, Smt. The residents of the village of Mouja Khapari in Tah are Bakubai (P.W.2), along with his sons, Shri Vittal (P.W. 1), Baliram (P.W. 3), and Maroti (P.W. 4). Wardha District, Seloo. The complainant’s land is directly adjacent to the accused Homdeo’s agricultural land. Maroti Ganpat Yelore (P.W. 4) had entered the agricultural land on the day of the incident, which occurred on April 21, 1987, around 3 p.m., with the intention of grazing cattle there. The defendant or respondent No. 3 Maroti’s cattle were grazing in his field, according to Homdeo. Homdeo Botre, also known as the accused No. 3) went to Maroti Yelore and attacked her (P.W. 4). Homdeo pulled Maroti away and attacked her with slaps. Maroti Yelore took cover behind Laxman Urkuda. Because Laxman Urkuda intervened, Maroti (P.W. 4) was able to save himself. Maroti (P.W. 4) got back from the field and unveiled to his siblings and father the above episode. Maroti Yelore (P.W. 4) went to the agricultural land with his brothers and father on this day to ask Homedo Botre why he had assaulted Maroti. Homdeo was not located after they searched for him.

Around the same time, as indicated by the Prosecution, Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2) had gone in the field to milk the cows. At around 7 o’clock in the evening, the deceased Ganpat, his wife Smt. Bakubai, and their children Baliram and Maroti, four in number, began returning towards the town. At the point when they showed up close to the place of Dhyaneshwar Deolikar, as per the Prosecution, every one of the four respondents and charges were seen standing equipped with sticks. Bhaurao Doma Udan (accused/respondent No. 1) as well as Homdeo Mahadeo Botre (accused/respondent No. 3) struck Smt. on the back of the head with sticks. Bakubai. Ganpat, the deceased, and his sons, namely Baliram and Maroti, interceded and attempted to save Smt. Bakubai. The denounced, Bhaurao and Homdeo, conveyed blows with sticks on the top of the departed Ganpat. Tukaram Bhaurao Udan (accused/respondent No. 2) Dilip Bhaurao Udan (accused/respondent No. 4) used sticks to attack Baliram and Maroti. The head of the deceased Ganpat was bleeding, and he fell to the ground and succumbed to his injuries immediately after the incident.

LEGAL ISSUE:

The main legal issue involved in this case is that the acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge erred in coming to the conclusion of the acquittal of the accused; and also the question is can a person having the right to private defence use more force than is necessary.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION:

The prosecution claims that Smt. Bakubai (P.W. 2) was ahead of them on her way home with her sons Baliram and Maroti and her late husband, Ganpat. When they showed up close to the place of Dhyaneshwar Deolikar, they found the respondents and denounced standing furnished with sticks. As Bakubai was in front of others, she was first attacked by the accused, Bhaurao. She suffered injuries to her left shoulder and back from the accused, Bhaurao. She was saved quickly by her husband and sons. In addition, the deceased Ganpat was struck with sticks by the accused Homdeo and Bhaurao. Dilip and Tukaram, the accused, beat Baliram and Maroti with sticks. Vithhal and Narayan had stepped in. All of the accused fled the scene as Ganpat fell to the ground.

ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENCE:

It is explicitly presented by the Defence counsel that the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo were attacked by the deceased Ganpat and his children Baliram, Maroti, and Vithhal, and they sustained wounds. Dr. Taksande (P.W. 9) testified that the stick blows that caused the injuries on the accused Bhaurao and Homdeo’s bodies were straightforward. In the course of the cross-examination, Dr. Taksande also acknowledged that the injuries could not have been caused by him. The witnesses for the prosecution were P.W. 1 Vithhal, P.W. 2, Smt. Bakubai, P.W. 3, Baliram, and P.W. 4, Maroti, all pleaded ignorance regarding the accused’s bodily injuries. The accused, Bhaurao and Homdeo, were specifically denied by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witness additionally rejected that they were outfitted with sticks. Smt. says that Her husband, the late Ganpat Bakubai (P.W. 2), had a stick because he used to always have one with him because he was crippled by one leg.

It is abundantly clear from the case’s facts and circumstances that the respondents and accused had no resentment toward the deceased Ganpat, his wife Bakubai, or his sons. At 3 p.m., the accused Homdeo had assaulted Maroti as his cattle were discovered in his field, settling the dispute there. Subsequently, giving cognizant ideas to current realities and conditions of the case, the learned preliminary adjudicator has appropriately seen that the arraignment has stifled the beginning and beginning of the event and has, in this way, not introduced the genuine variant.

JUDGMENT:

There is no widespread decision that simply on the grounds that a few wounds are found on the individual of the denounced, the assumption of the activity of the right of private guard quickly jumps up. It is not a universally accepted law that the complainant party was the aggressor and the plea of private defense should be established as soon as it is discovered that the accused has sustained injuries. It is not necessary to take into account the fact that the accused has injuries on his or her body. The mere presence of injuries on some of the accused does not demonstrate that they acted in self-defense if the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the accused party was the aggressor. The entire incident must be carefully examined and viewed in its proper context in order to determine whether the accused has the right to private defense. All of the circumstances surrounding the incident must be taken into account.

The court in its order held that it didn’t find any manifest illegality in the order delivered by the Court of Sessions. The Bombay High Court in the judgment held that the appeal is dismissed.

Admin