IN THE SESSIONS COURT OF RATNAGIRI AT RATNAGIRI

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION)

APPLICATION (Cr) No. /2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

Vs

A, B & C ...Respondents

INDEX

S. No. Particulars Page

No.

1. Notice of Motion

2. Urgent Application

3. Synopsis

4. List of Dates and Events

Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

5.
Procedure, 1908

6. Annexures

Mr. D,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
154, Lawyers’ Chamber Block
Ratnagiri Sessions Court
Ratnagiri - 415612
(M) +91 7617510044
IN THE SESSIONS COURT OF RATNAGIRI AT RATNAGIRI
(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION)
APPLICATION (Cr) No. /2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

Vs

A, B & C ...Respondents

NOTICE OF MOTION
TAKE NOTICE that the accompanying suit will be listed before Court on
________ at 10.30 in the forenoon, or so, soon thereafter as may be convenient
to the Court.

Mr. D,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
154, Lawyers’ Chamber Block
Ratnagiri Sessions Court
Ratnagiri - 415612
(M) +91 7617510044

RATNAGIRI
DATED:
IN THE SESSIONS COURT OF RATNAGIRI AT RATNAGIRI
(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION)
APPLICATION (Cr) No. /2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

Vs

A, B & C ...Respondents

URGENT APPLICATION
To,
The Registrar
Sessions Court of Ratnagiri,
Ratnagiri – 415612

It is submitted that the present accompanying petition may be considered as

urgent and may be placed before the Hon’ble Court immediately. The ground
of urgency is "as prayed for".

Mr. D,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
154, Lawyers’ Chamber Block
Ratnagiri Sessions Court
Ratnagiri - 415612
(M) +91 7617510044
RATNAGIRI
DATED:
 SYNOPSIS

The deceased person X and accused A, B and C were friends for the past two decade.
Four of them were collectively conducting social welfare activities and were popular
for their contribution and social commitments in nearby villages. All four of them
were on good terms with each other. In 2014, they started a Cooperative Financial
Society with the objective to lend money to poor villagers who were in need of the
money. C was a professional money lender and used his expertise and money to help
the Cooperative Financial Society as and when required by contacting and arranging
for different creditors and borrowers for that cooperative society. Residents of that
area used to borrow money at exorbitant interest rates.

Due to legislative changes in recent years, there were stringent restrictions placed on
the functioning of the cooperative society run by the deceased and the accused which
created monitory issues and tensions amongst the group. To resolve the same, F, a
known sand mafia was also involved as he tried to resolve the issue by mediating
between the four men as and when required.

F, in one of his attempts to mediate between the four men, scheduled a meeting for
all of them to meet on the 14 th of June, 2019, at Hotel Heera in Chandani Circle
Ratnagiri at 11:00 am. As per witness accounts, they had a general, civilised
discussion for the first 20 minutes after which the discussion turned heated as the
topic of the monetary issues was raised. X resorted to shouting as he scolded the trio
of A, B and C for their past behaviour and apparent ungratefulness. He was angry at
C for not giving account money lent in the nearby villages in the past year and asked
him to leave the meeting.

At this point, A, B and C commonly attacked X and kicked him. F playing the
mediator, tried to resolve their issue by calm discussion and asked them all to
maintain calm. Suddenly, C could not control his anger and took out a pistol from
the pocket and shot X. The bullet hit X on his left knee and all A, B and C ran away
from the spot. F also got scared and ran away immediately. The witness, E, was a
waiter in Hotel Heera and was present at the spot of the crime as he was serving
drinks to them in the room. After witnessing the crime, he contacted the police and
sent the details of the event on the police WhatsApp number and registered the First
Information Report (FIR). Police Officers I and J arrived at the crime scene,
immediately. Officer I took X to Civil Hospital Ratnagiri. Medical officers declared
X due to delay in admitting him on time. As per the post mortem reports, the cause
of X’s death was not only due to bullet of pistol but also due to a heart attack caused
by high blood pressure.

Police officers I and J arrived on the spot immediately. Officer I took X to civil
hospital Ratnagiri. Medical officers declared X dead due to delay in admitting him
on time. Post mortem was conducted and as per the report, death of X was not only
due to bullet of pistol but also due to high blood pressure and heart attack.
Investigation was conducted by Investigating Officer J who also recorded statements
of two panch witnesses. CCTV footage was collected as part of the evidence from
the Hotel Heera. Accused A, B and C were arrested from Goa.
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
Date Event
The deceased person X and accused A, B and C were friends
for the past two decade. Four of them were collectively
conducting social welfare activities and were popular for their
1990s
contribution and social commitments in nearby villages. All
four of them were on good terms with each other.

In 2014, they started a Cooperative Financial Society with the

objective to lend money to poor villagers who were in need of
the money. C was a professional money lender and used his
2014 expertise and money to help the Cooperative Financial Society
as and when required by contacting and arranging for different
creditors and borrowers for that cooperative society. Residents
of that area used to borrow money at exorbitant interest rates.
Due to legislative changes in recent years, there were stringent
restrictions placed on the functioning of the cooperative
society run by the deceased and the accused which created
2014-2019 monitory issues and tensions amongst the group. To resolve
the same, F, a known sand mafia was also involved as he tried
to resolve the issue by mediating between the four men as and
when required.
14th June, 2019 F, in one of his attempts to mediate between the four men,
scheduled a meeting for all of them to meet on the 14th of
June, 2019, at Hotel Heera in Chandani Circle Ratnagiri at
11:00 am. As per witness accounts, they had a general,
civilised discussion for the first 20 minutes after which the
discussion turned heated as the topic of the monetary issues
was raised. X resorted to shouting as he scolded the trio of A,
B and C for their past behaviour and apparent ungratefulness.
He was angry at C for not giving account money lent in the
nearby villages in the past year and asked him to leave the
meeting. At this point, A, B and C commonly attacked X and
 kicked him.
F playing the mediator, tried to resolve their issue by calm
discussion and asked them all to maintain calm. Suddenly, C
could not control his anger and took out a pistol from the
pocket and shot X. The bullet hit X on his left knee and all A,
B and C ran away from the spot. F also got scared and ran
away immediately. The witness, E, was a waiter in Hotel
Heera and was present at the spot of the crime as he was
serving drinks to them in the room. After witnessing the crime,
he contacted the police and sent the details of the event on the
police WhatsApp number and registered the First Information
Report (FIR). Police Officers I and J arrived at the crime
scene, immediately. Officer I took X to Civil Hospital
Ratnagiri. Medical officers declared X due to delay in
admitting him on time. As per the post mortem reports, the
cause of X’s death was not only due to bullet of pistol but also
due to a heart attack caused by high blood pressure.
Police officers I and J arrived on the spot immediately. Officer
I took X to civil hospital Ratnagiri. Medical officers declared
X dead due to delay in admitting him on time. Post mortem
was conducted and as per the report, death of X was not only
due to bullet of pistol but also due to high blood pressure and
heart attack.
21st June 2019 Accused A, B and C were arrested from Goa.
Hence, the present Petition.
IN THE SESSIONS COURT OF RATNAGIRI AT RATNAGIRI
(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION)
APPLICATION (Cr) No. /2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner

Vs

A, B & C ...Respondents

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION UNDER SECTION 26 OF

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

To,
Hon’ble The Justice and His Companion Justices of the
Sessions Court of Ratnagiri, at Ratnagiri

The humble petition of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present application has been filed in lieu of the aforementioned facts and

FIR lodged on 14.06.2022 to Investigating Officers of Chandani Circle

Police Station, Ratnagiri. A true copy of FIR dated 14.06.2019 is annexed

herewith as ‘Annexure P-1’.

FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT PETITION

2. The deceased person X and accused A, B and C were friends for the past two
decade. Four of them were collectively conducting social welfare activities
and were popular for their contribution and social commitments in nearby
villages. All four of them were on good terms with each other. In 2014, they
 started a Cooperative Financial Society with the objective to lend money to
poor villagers who were in need of the money. C was a professional money
lender and used his expertise and money to help the Cooperative Financial
Society as and when required by contacting and arranging for different
creditors and borrowers for that cooperative society. Residents of that area
used to borrow money at exorbitant interest rates.
3. Due to legislative changes in recent years, there were stringent restrictions
placed on the functioning of the cooperative society run by the deceased and
the accused which created monitory issues and tensions amongst the group.
To resolve the same, F, a known sand mafia was also involved as he tried to
resolve the issue by mediating between the four men as and when required.
4. F, in one of his attempts to mediate between the four men, scheduled a
meeting for all of them to meet on the 14 th of June, 2019, at Hotel Heera in
Chandani Circle Ratnagiri at 11:00 am. As per witness accounts, they had a
general, civilised discussion for the first 20 minutes after which the
discussion turned heated as the topic of the monetary issues was raised. X
resorted to shouting as he scolded the trio of A, B and C for their past
behaviour and apparent ungratefulness. He was angry at C for not giving
account money lent in the nearby villages in the past year and asked him to
leave the meeting.
5. At this point, A, B and C commonly attacked X and kicked him. F playing
the mediator, tried to resolve their issue by calm discussion and asked them
all to maintain calm. Suddenly, C could not control his anger and took out a
pistol from the pocket and shot X. The bullet hit X on his left knee and all A,
B and C ran away from the spot. F also got scared and ran away
immediately. The witness, E, was a waiter in Hotel Heera and was present at
the spot of the crime as he was serving drinks to them in the room. After
witnessing the crime, he contacted the police and sent the details of the event
on the police WhatsApp number and registered the First Information Report
(FIR). Police Officers I and J arrived at the crime scene, immediately.
Officer I took X to Civil Hospital Ratnagiri. Medical officers declared X due
to delay in admitting him on time. As per the post mortem reports, the cause
of X’s death was not only due to bullet of pistol but also due to a heart attack
caused by high blood pressure.
 6. Police officers I and J arrived on the spot immediately. Officer I took X to
civil hospital Ratnagiri. Medical officers declared X dead due to delay in
admitting him on time. Post mortem was conducted and as per the report,
death of X was not only due to bullet of pistol but also due to high blood
pressure and heart attack. Investigation was conducted by Investigating
Officer J who also recorded statements of two panch witnesses. CCTV
footage was collected as part of the evidence from the Hotel Heera. Accused
A, B and C were arrested from Goa.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances and the FIR dated

14.06.2019, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Hon’ble

Court on the following grounds, amongst others, each of which are without

prejudice and in the alternative to one another:

GROUNDS

7. BECAUSE, the accused A, B and C had a common and criminal intention as

defined under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and

Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) to assault the deceased

X, cause grievous hurt and murder the deceased.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code reads as below:

“Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. —

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common

intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner

as if it were done by him alone.”

Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code reads as below:

“When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal

knowledge or intention. - Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason

of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several

 persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or

intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by

him alone with that knowledge or intention.”

According to the witness account, given by eye witness F in his statements in

the FIR, it is clear that accused A, B and C did not hesitate once in attacking

deceased X in a concocted manner. It is evident that this attack was pre-

meditated as all three men got up in an instance and attacked X asked C to

leave the room as the discussion became heated. Further, according to the

witness accounts, neither A nor B tried to stop C as he pulled out a gun and

shot the fatal gunshot at deceased X. It is axiomatic that these acts were done

in the furtherance of a common intention i.e. to injure and eventually kill X.

Further, it is also contended that the same was done with a criminal

knowledge and intention, and as the act committed by them is criminal, all

three accused should be found guilty of having a common, criminal intention

under the aforementioned relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

8. BECAUSE, accused A, B and C by first attacking X and then shooting him

attempted to murder X, they should be found guilty for Murder as defined

under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), which reads:

“Murder. —Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is

murder, if the act by

which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

2ndly. —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the

offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the

harm is caused, or—

3rdly. —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person

and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death, or—

4thly. —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently

dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury

as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for

incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

According to the eye-witness account as well as the evidence adduced by the

investigating authority, the facts of the case are clear as follows –

a) The accused A, B and C acting with a common intention, attacked X

together when X asked C to leave the room after a heated argument

regarding their monetary issues.

b) During the chaos and commotion as the three continued to beat X up, C

pulled out a Glock Gun and shot at X from point blank range but due to

the commotion could only hit his left knee and missed the vital organs. A

true copy of the Ballistic Report dated 16.06.2019 is annexed herewith as

‘Annexure P-2’.

c) This act of beating X up, and shooting his knee caused his blood pressure

to rise to such an extent that it caused him a heart attack which caused his

death and was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. A true copy of

the Post Mortem Report dated 16.06.2019 is annexed herewith as

‘Annexure P-3’.

The facts found by the investigating authorities as well as the eye witness

accounts state that the relations between the four men had soured due to

the fiscal disagreements between them. Despite their decades long

 friendship, they were constantly quarrelling with each other and multiple

attempts to mediate the dispute were made by a third party F. It seems

clear from these facts that the situation had worsened to an extent where

the three men had a premeditated intention to attack and shoot X, if and

when things went south with regards to their discussion about the

ongoing monetary disagreements. This is apparent from the very fact C

was carrying a weapon with him on the day in question and that all three

of them attacked X together and did so without any hesitation. Neither A

nor B tried to stop C as he shot X and the three acted with the intention

and the knowledge that their actions will cause the death of X.

According to the Post Mortem Report, attached herein as “Annexure P-

3”, the cause of the death was a Myocardial Infarction i.e. a heart

attacked caused by a clot in the coronary artery as a result of the bullet

which led to the blocking of blood flow leading to decreased blood

supply leading to necrosis of the heart muscle. Hence, the gunshot proved

to be fatal as it led to X bleeding out and that caused the final fatal heart

attack that was the cause of his death. The three accused were aware that

attacking an unarmed man and then shooting him from point blank range

would in all probability cause his death and despite the knowledge of the

same, the three worked in the furtherance of his death with a common

intention.

In Sehaj Ram v. State of Haryana 1, a constable who fired several shots

on another constable, out of which one shot hit the victim beneath the

knee of his right leg and he fell down. Here the accused said that his

intention was to give mere threat to the deceased not to cause death. But
1
(1983) 3 SCC 280
 the Supreme Court rejected the contention and held that the act was done

under the clause 4 and accused should be convicted for murder.

9. BECAUSE the Accused A, B and C voluntarily caused grievous hurt as

defined under Section 320 and Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code (45

of 1860). Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, reads:

“Grievous hurt. —The following kinds of hurt only are designated as

“grievous”: —

First. —Emasculation.

Secondly. —Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

Thirdly. —Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

Fourthly. —Privation of any member or joint.

Fifthly. —Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member

or joint.

Sixthly. —Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly. —Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly. —Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be

during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow

his ordinary pursuits.”

Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code reads:

“Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. —Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if

the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is

grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said

“voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.”

 According to the post mortem report, attached herein, excessive blows to the

chest wall of the deceased had resulted in the fracture and dislocation of 2

ribs. Section 322 of the IPC, clearly mentions that any fracture or

dislocation of the bone constitutes ‘grievous hurt.” Further, the same was

voluntarily done by the accused with both the intention and knowledge to

cause such grievous hurt to X when they attacked him. The exception to the

aforementioned provision is mentioned under Section 335 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 which talks about the causing of grievous hurt on

provocation. In the current case, despite there being an argument between the

parties, there was no provocation grave enough to warrant an assault that

would eventually result in the shooting and death of X. Thus, the defence of

provocation cannot be taken by the defence counsels on behalf of the

accused.

10. BECAUSE, the accused violated the provisions of the arms act, as

mentioned under Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 5 reads:

“Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale of

prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. ―No person shall―

(a) acquire, have in his possession or carry; or

(b) 5 [use, manufacture] sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove; or

(c) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale,

transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof; any prohibited arms or prohibited

ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central

Government in this behalf.”

Thus, the sheer fact that an unlicensed gun was found on C and the same was

the weapon used to shoot and kill the deceased the X is a clear indication
that the provisions of the arms act relating to the unlicensed possession of a

gun were violated and the accused shall be punished for the same.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may: -

a) Find the accused guilty on account of murder as defined under

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and maximum punishment

may be granted to the same as prescribed under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code that states – “Punishment for murder.—

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or

[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”;

b) Find the accused guilty of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous

weapon as mentioned under Section 326 of the Indian Penal

Code and maximum punishment for the same may be granted, as

prescribed under the same provision to be life imprisonment or

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

c) Find the accused guilty of violation of Section 7 of the Arms

Act, 1959 and punish the accused, with the maximum

punishment possible for the same in accordance with the

provisions of Section 27 of the Arms Act, which states:

“Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of

section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven

years and shall also be liable to fine.

 (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition

in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years

but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be

liable to fine.

(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition

or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act

results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with

death.”

d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

Petitioner

Through-

Mr. D,
PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
154, Lawyers’ Chamber Block
Ratnagiri Sessions Court
Ratnagiri - 415612
(M) +91 7617510044