Bombay High Court
Gangadhar Madhavrao Shinde vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 April, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
158.13crrevn
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2003
Gangadhar s/o Madhavrao Shinde,
Age: 62 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o. At present S.R.P.F. Camp,
Jalna. ...Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
ig .....
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicant
Ms. R.P. Gour, A.P.P. for respondent
.....
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 6th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The applicant was charged for the offence punishable
under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code before learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jalna in Summary Trial Case No. 2476 of
1996, pursuant to a complaint lodged by P.S.I. Sanap of S.R.P.
Group No. III, Jalna.
2. The prosecution case is that the present applicant-
accused on 29/07/1996 at about 8-30 a.m. had given stick blows on
the back of the complainant, resulting into registration of Crime No. I-
85 of 1996.
158.13crrevn
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has
examined in all 12 witnesses. After considering the evidence that
was brought on record by the prosecution, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalna held the applicant-accused guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code by the
judgment dated 22/06/2000 and sentenced him to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
4. In Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000 at the behest of the
applicant-accused, the conviction came to be upheld, however, fine
amount came to be enhanced to Rs.4000/-, in default, to suffer
simple imprisonment for three months, by judgment dated
11/03/2003.
5. While questioning the legality of both the orders, Mr.
Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant-accused would rely upon
the certain material so as to canvass that mental condition of the
applicant at the relevant time, when the offence was committed, was
not proper and he was not in a fit state of mind. So as to
substantiate his contention, he has invited attention of this Court to
the judgment to the appellate Court.
158.13crrevn
6. He would then submit that in absence of any past
antecedents like similar one, the applicant is entitled for acquittal.
7. According to him, re-trial is required to be ordered, as
the applicant was not in a fit state of mind to defend his case.
8. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the applicant
and learned A.P.P., I have perused the record and findings recorded
by both the Courts below.
9. The complainant and other 11 witnesses were examined
in support of the prosecution case. It was proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the applicant has committed crime in question. The
evidence of all the witnesses was found to be in corroboration with
each other and nothing adverse is noticed so as to extend the benefit
of the same to the applicant-accused. The appellate Court has also
considered all the aspects of the matter and has dwelt upon the plea
as regards state of mind of the applicant.
10. Both the Courts below have, in detail, dealt with the
evidence of each of the witnesses and upon analyzed thereof,
awarded punishment.
158.13crrevn
11. In my opinion, no case for interference, in extraordinary
jurisdiction, is made out.
12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the provisions
of Probation of Offenders Act could be extended to the applicant, as
he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment
for three months and has already paid fine.
13. In view thereof, the applicant-accused be released on
probation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. The applicant shall furnish bond of good
behaviour with the Probation Officer, Jalna within four weeks from
today.
14. The criminal revision application stands disposed of in above
terms.
Sd/-
[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]
Tupe/06.04.16
