Twenty-four years after 11 persons killed a man over rivalry in sarpanch election of a village near Panvel, the Bombay high court (HC) has upheld their conviction for murder and sentenced them to life in prison.
Twenty-four years after 11 persons killed a man over rivalry in sarpanch election of a village near Panvel, the Bombay high court (HC) has upheld their conviction for murder and sentenced them to life in prison.
After cancelling their bails, a division bench of justices PV Hardas and Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi has asked the accused to surrender.
The HC was hearing an appeal filed by the 11 accused challenging their conviction by the sessions court at Alibaug in 1994.
The HC observed: "The prosecution case stands on a very solid and strong footing, leaving no manner of doubt either about the happening of the incident or about the complicity of appellants (accused) therein."
It is a case of rivalry between two factions of the village, which ultimately resulted in the death of sarpanch Tukaram Bhopi's nephew Madan.
The prosecution had arrested 18 persons in the case. However, only 11 were convicted on November 17, 1994. Seven others were acquitted by the sessions court observing that "there was no sufficient evidence on record against them and hence benefit of doubt can be extended to them."
Bhopi was sarpanch of gram panchayat Nitlas, taluka Panvel, district Thane from 1986 to 1991. There were nine members in the panchayat out of which four were of his party and five were of the party of the accused number 4, Shivram. The village was also equally divided between these two parties. According to additional public prosecutor Usha Kejriwal, on October 25, 1991, sarpanch's nephew Madan was riding back home from his shift at a factory at 11pm when the accused persons assaulted him.
Due to a minor incident a few days prior to that incident, Bhopi feared for Madan's life and had sent two of his men, Narayan and Eknath, to accompany Madan. When accused started assaulting Madan with swords, sticks and sickles, the two men managed to flee and called the police.
Ashok Mundargi, counsel for the accused, argued that on account of the strained relations and enmity between the parties, they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Also, the defence claimed that Madan might have been assaulted by the members of rival trade union at his factory. Also, if Narayan and Eknath had gone to protect Madan, then why did they flee from the spot, questioned Mundargi.
Dismissing the arguments, the HC observed that there is no set rule of natural reaction. "Everyone reacts in his own special way. Hence, to discard the evidence of an eyewitness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner, is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginable way," said the judges.
Secondly, witnesses were unarmed and far outnumbered by the accused. The court added: "Hence, in our considered opinion, non-intervention by these witnesses in the course of occurrence, particularly when there were about 18 accused armed with deadly weapons, cannot be a circumstance against their credibility, self survival being the most predominant human tendency."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}