Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Babu Laxman Chavan on 29 April, 2016
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.26 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
through : Police Station, Wadhone,
Tq. Udgir, District Latur. ... ... APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
1. Laxman s/o Venkati Chavan,
Age 55 years,
2. Satyabhamabai w/o Laxman Chavan,
Age 45 years,
Both R/o Hipparga, Tq. Udgir,
District Latur. ... ... RESPONDENTS
(Original Accused No.1 and 3)
.....
Shri A.M. Phule, A.P.P. for appellant / State
Ms Supriya L. Pansambal, Advocate holding for
Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondents
.....
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
through : Police Station, Wadhone,
Tq. Udgir, District Latur. ... ... APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
Babu s/o Laxman Chavan,
Age 26 years,
R/o Hipparga, Tq. Udgir, ... ... RESPONDENT
District Latur. (Original Accused No.2)
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:18:18 :::
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
2
.....
Shri A.M. Phule, A.P.P. for appellant / State
Ms Supriya L. Pansambal, Advocate holding for
Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent
.....
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATED: 29th April, 2016.
Date of reserving judgment : 13th April 2016
Date of pronouncing judgment : 29th April 2016.
JUDGMENT:
1. These appeals have been filed by the State.
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 is filed against the acquittal of
the respondent Laxman Venkati Chavan and Satyabhamabai
Laxman Chavan (original accused Nos.1 and 3 in R.C.C.
No.412/1999) vide judgment passed by the Jt. Judicial
Magistrate, First Class Udgir, District Latur on 25.10.2004. By
the same judgment, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class
convicted accused No.2 Babu Laxman Chavan (original
accused No.2) for offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief). The trial Court passed
sentence against respondent Babu directing him to suffer
simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
three months.
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005 is for enhancement of
the sentence which was imposed against accused No.2 Babu.
I will refer to the respondents as accused Nos.1 to 3, the
manner in which they were arrayed in the R.C.C. No.412/1999
before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) On 23.10.1999, at about 3.30 p.m., complainant
Nivrutti Hanumant Chavan (hereinafter referred as
complainant) filed F.I.R. with Wadhona Police
Station, which came to be registered as Crime
No.117/1999. He informed that, on that day he
along with his wife Kashibai (P.W.3) and two
daughters-in-law Anuradha (P.W.4) and Meena
(P.W.5) and son Vijay (P.W.2) had gone to their
field situated at Hipparga Shivar and were working
in their field. At about 2.30 p.m., accused No.2
Laxman Chavan and his son accused No.2 Babu
were working in their field which is adjoining and
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
they were ploughing their field. In the process,
they broke the common bandh and when he
objected, they along with wife of accused No.1
Laxman (Satyabhama) came abusing and by stone
and "Tutati" (i.e. handle of whip for bullock) hit on
his head, back and ear and he started bleeding.
When his wife and son Vijay came to intervene,
these three accused beat them also and his son
was hit on the back and his wife (Kashibai) also
suffered blow on tooth. While the quarrel was
going on, his two daughters-in-law intervened and
separated the quarrel. Thus, the F.I.R.
(b) The offence was registered and Head Constable
Sabiyoddin (P.W.9) investigated the matter. The
injured were sent to hospital and medical
certificates were obtained. On 24.10.1999, the
Head Constable went to the spot and prepared
spot panchanama (Exh.34). The Tutati came to be
seized from accused No.2 Babu on 25.10.1999.
Statements of witnesses were recorded and after
investigation was completed, charge sheet came to
be filed.
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
3. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class framed charge
against the accused persons under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of the I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.
Their defence is of denial. According to the accused persons,
the complainant wants to grab their land and for this purpose,
the false complaint is filed.
4.
In the trial Court, the complainant Nivrutti deposed
as P.W.1 and proved the F.I.R. at Exh.22. His son Vijay
(P.W.2), wife Kashibai (P.W.3) daughter-in-law Anuradha
(P.W.4) and daughter-in-law Meena (P.W.5) entered witness
box in support of the complainant. Out of these, P.Ws.1 to 3
claimed to be also victims of the assault. Vinayak Chavan
(P.W.6) is panch of seizure of Tutati from accused No.2 Babu
for which panchanama Exh.31 was prepared on 25.10.1999.
As regards the spot, Panch Pandhari (P.W.7) deposed in
support of prosecution and spot panchanama Exh.34 was
proved. On day of incident, at about 5.30 p.m., Dr. Ranjit
had examined P.W.1 to 3 and issued medical certificates
Exh.52, 53 and 54 in their faovur regarding the injuries which
were simple. This doctor deposed as P.W.8. Investigating
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
officer came on record as P.W.9.
5. The trial Court, after hearing the evidence, has
passed judgment observing that there was consistency in the
evidence as regards injury caused by accused No.2 Babu with
the aid of Tutati to P.W.1 Nivrutti, but there was no
consistency as regards the acts of assault attributed to
accused No.1 and 3 by the witnesses. On such analysis, the
trial Court acquitted the accused No.1 Laxman and his wife
accused No.3 Satyabhamabai, but convicted accused No.2
Babu as mentioned above.
6. It has been argued by the learned A.P.P. for State
that, the trial Court could not have acquitted accused No.1
Laxman and his wife Satyabhamabai as P.W.1 to 5 had given
various details as regards acts of these accused for causing
hurt to P.Ws.1 to 3. It is argued that, after holding accused
No.2 Babu also guilty for offence under Section 324,
disproportionately low sentence has been passed and the
punishment was grossly insufficient and the sentence of
accused No.2 Babu needs to be enhanced and he should be
suitably punished.
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
7. Against this, the learned counsel for the accused
persons submitted that between the parties, there were
disputes and in the present matter, there were counter
complaints. This can be seen from the judgment itself as on
same day the other matter, in which the present complainant
and his family were accused, was also before the trial Court.
According to the learned counsel, the reasonings recorded by
the trial Court for appreciation of the evidence need to be
upheld and the acquittal of accused No.1 and 3 was correct.
The learned counsel submitted that, looking to the fact that
there was a sudden quarrel, the sentence passed is correct
and proper. There are no earlier criminal cases and the
sentence passed against accused No.2 Babu need not be
interfered with.
In reply, the learned A.P.P. submitted that, looking
to the facts of the matter, the trial Court could have at least
granted compensation to the complainant.
8. I have gone through the evidence which was
brought before the trial Court. Complainant Nivrutti deposed
before the trial Court as to how he, his wife, son and two
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
daughters-in-law were working in the field. He deposed that,
accused No.2 Babu at that time was ploughing in his field at
about 2.30 p.m. and damaged the common bandh. According
to him, he went and questioned accused No.2, at which time
accused No.2 Laxman came and he started ploughing and
accused No.3 Satyabhama instigated accused No.2 Babu
against the complainant, who thereafter caught the shirt of
the complainant and hit him by Tutati, causing bleeding
injury. When his wife Kashibai and Vijay intervened, accused
persons assaulted them also by stone, causing injury to teeth
of Kashibai and to waist and back of Vijay. The daughters-in-
law intervened and the quarrel was separated.
9. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 also is that, the
quarrel started because of damaging of the common bandh
between the field of accused persons and the complainant and
thereafter the quarrel took place, in which these witnesses
claimed that, in addition to the complainant Nivrutti, P.W.2
Vijay and P.W.3 Kashibai were also injured.
10. When I peruse the judgment of the trial Court, I
find that, the trial Court referred to the specific evidence of
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
these witnesses and after reproducing in brief the details
given by the witnesses, the trial Court analysed the evidence
of these P.W.1 to P.W.5 in para 16 and 17 of its judgment.
The trial Court also kept in view the contents in the complaint
for analyzing and weighing the evidence of these witnesses.
Trial Court discussed that, P.W.1 Nivrutti deposed that
accused No.2 Babu assaulted him by means of handle of whip
i.e. Tutati and that accused No.1 had assaulted P.W.2 and
P.W.3 by stone. The trial Court observed that, P.W.2,
however, did not depose that accused No.1 assaulted him or
his mother by means of stone. Trial Court observed that,
P.W.2 claimed that all accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him and
his mother by stone. The trial Court then compared the
complaint Exh.22 with the oral version to find that there was
no corroboration to such evidence that accused No.1 assaulted
P.W.2 and P.W.3 by stone. Trial Court discussed that, P.W.3
Kashibai claimed that accused No.1 and 2 assaulted her and
her son Vijay by kicks and blows. P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not
depose anything on this count. It was observed that, the
complaint did not state that accused No.1 and 2 assaulted by
means of kicks and blows. Reasonings of the trial Court show
that it analysed the evidence of P.W.3 that the witnesses
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
claimed that accused No.1 assaulted her by means of stone
over her teeth, but this did not find place in the complaint as
well as the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5. The trial
Court further discussed the evidence of these witnesses to
highlight that the witnesses were not corroborating each other
with regard to alleged acts of accused Nos.1 and 3.
11. The
trial Court then referred to the medical
evidence which was brought on record and observed that, it
had not found corroboration in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5
as regards assault by accused No.1 and 3 to P.W.2 Vijay and
P.W.3 Kashibai. Trial Court observed that, it found
corroboration with regard to only injury caused to complainant
by means of Tutati at the hands of accused No.2 Babu. Trial
Court accepted the evidence regarding seizure of Tutati and
the spot panchanama. For such reasons, the trial Court
proceeded to acquit the accused No.1 and 3 and convicted the
accused No.2.
12. Having gone through the complaint as well as the
evidence and the manner in which the trial Court has analysed
the evidence of different witnesses to hold that there was no
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
corroboration between the witnesses as regards the acts of
assault attributed to accused No.1 Laxman and accused No.3
Satyabhamabai, I do not find any reason to interfere as the
reasonings recorded are a possible view of the evidence. Only
because it may be possible to appreciate the evidence in
another manner would not be a reason to interfere in a
judgment of acquittal. Thus, I do not find any substance in
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005, which deserves to be dismissed.
13. As regards Criminal Appeal No.27/2005 for
enhancement of the sentence passed against accused No.2
Babu, I find that the trial Court convicted him for offence
under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused
No.2 has not raised grievances before me to submit that
conviction against him was bad. Still I have gone through the
evidence and I do not find any reason to interfere with the
conviction. As regards the sentence, the judgment of the trial
Court shows that, it considered the fact that this accused No.2
Babu was a first time offender and had no previous conviction
and that he had old parents to look after. On such basis,
leniency was sought from the trial Court, but the trial Court
observed that, in its opinion, the act of accused No.2 was
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
serious and so, deterrent punishment will be awarded to him.
Although the trial Court observed thus, the sentence was
passed of only sentence till rising of Court and fine of
Rs.1000/-.
14. It has to be remembered that, the cause of the
quarrel was due to the act of accused No.2 Babu damaging
the common bandh. As such, when the trial Court was of the
opinion that deterrent punishment should be awarded, this
accused should have been made to compensate the
complainant in case the trial Court concluded that sentence of
imprisonment was not necessary. The learned A.P.P. rightly
submitted that, the order of compensation should have been
passed. It would have compensated the complainant for the
injury caused and the order of compensation would have
worked as a deterrent to the accused No.2 Babu to be careful
with regard to the common bandh, damaging of which causes
concern to the neighbour, which is natural. In my view, the
sentence needs to be modified and instead of fine, the
respondent No.2 should be made to pay compensation.
15. I am keeping in view judgment of the Hon'ble
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir
Singh & ors. (1988) 4 SCC 551 , which has been considered
in the matter of Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan ,
reported in (2002) 2 SCC 420 . and I will direct imprisonment
in default of payment of compensation.
16. For the above reasons, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 against acquittal of
respondents - original accused No.1 and 3 is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.27/2005 for enhancement of
sentence passed against respondent - original accused No.2
Babu is allowed. The sentence of imprisonment till rising of
the Court, as passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Udgir on 25.10.2004 in R.C.C. No.412/1999 against
respondent No.2 Babu is maintained. The sentence directing
payment of fine of Rs.1000/- and direction that in default of
payment of fine, he should suffer further simple imprisonment
for three months is quashed and set aside. Instead, it is
Criminal Appeal No.26/2005 with
Criminal Appeal No.27/2005
directed that, under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, respondent Babu (original accused No.2)
shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)
to the complainant Nivrutti Hanumant Chavan. In default of
payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of three months. The amount of Rs.1000/- deposited
by this accused earlier in the trial Court as above, shall be
adjusted in this amount of compensation.
(iii) Bail bonds of respondents - accused No.1 and 3 in
Criminal Appeal no.26/2005 are cancelled. As regards
respondent Babu - accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal
No.27/2005, he is directed to surrender to his bail bonds
before the trial Court on 3 rd May 2016 and deposit the amount
of compensation as directed. In default, the trial Court shall
ensure his presence and execution of these orders. On
recovery of the compensation, the same shall be paid to P.W.1
Nivrutti Hanumant Chavan.
(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)
