cra110.06.J.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2006
Pundlik son of Mohan Kharkar,
Aged about 32 years,
Occupation: Labourer,
Resident of-- ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra, through
the Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Warora, Distirct Chandrapur.
2] Suresh Vitthal Meshram,
Aged about 26 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist.
3] Nirdosh Maroti Meshram,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist.
4] Vitthal Maroti Meshram,
Aged about 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Nos. 2 to 4 all residents of Takli,
District Chandrapur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms. T.H. Udeshi, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Jayshree Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE: 22 nd NOVEMBER, 2017. ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:45 ::: cra110.06.J.odt 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1] The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment dated
09.01.2006 in Sessions Trial 15/2003 delivered by the 1 st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, by and under which, the respondents 2 to 4 are acquitted of offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment of acquittal is not challenged by the State and the applicant, who is the complainant, has invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2] Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. T.H. Udeshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent 1/State and Ms. Jayshree Mahajan, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. 3] At the outset, it must be noted, that the revision has its genesis in an incident which took place on 09.04.1997. Apparently, there was a free fight between two factions. ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:45 ::: cra110.06.J.odt 3 The applicant herein along with Vitthal Kharkar and Deepak Kharkhar faced prosecution under sections 323, 341, 326 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC and were tried in Sessions Case 112/1997. The applicant and the other accused were convicted of offence punishable under sections 323, 326 and 341 of IPC, by judgment dated 09.01.2006. The said judgment was challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal 43/2006 which is decided by judgment dated 22.11.2017. This Court partly allowed the appeal and scaled down the conviction under section 326 IPC to 324 IPC and extended the benefit of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused.
4] The respondents 2 and 4 are the injured and star witnesses in the cross appeal which is decided by this Court by the judgment referred to supra while respondent 3 is also a prosecution witness therein. The applicant herein, as noted supra, is an accused along with two others.
5] Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appreciation of evidence is infirm and ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:45 ::: cra110.06.J.odt 4 dangerously borders on perversity and this is a fit case for this Court to invoke revisional jurisdiction. I am not inclined to agree. 6] I have given my anxious consideration to the judgment of acquittal, which is not challenged by the State. The learned Sessions Judge, has noted that the evidence of P.W.3 Pundlik and that of P.W.4 Pandurang is inconsistent in as much as while P.W.4 Pandurang has deposed that accused Vitthal injured him by a stick blow, P.W.3 Pundlik is absolutely silent on Vitthal assaulting P.W.4 Pandurang. The appreciation of evidence of the learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment impugned is unexceptionable, in so far as the assault on P.W.4 Pandurang is concerned.
7] The applicant Pundlik Kharkar has deposed that accused Suresh assaulted Pandurang with stick on the back and left hand. However, the medical evidence is inconsistent with the said version and injury certificate Exh.30 does not indicate any injury on the back or left hand of P.W.4 Pandurang. In so far as the applicant herein P.W.3 Pundlik is concerned, he did suffer two ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:45 ::: cra110.06.J.odt 5 contusions on his left hand. However, his deposition is that the accused Vitthal assaulted him with stick on his right hand, and the version is therefore, suspect, as is rightly noted by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 14 of the judgment impugned. The appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is unexceptionable and I do not see any compelling reason to exercise revisional powers to disturb the finding of acquittal. 8] The revision is sans merit and is rejected.
JUDGE NSN ::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:45 :::