Bombay High Court
Raosaheb Kashinath Hon And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 December, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIM.REVISION APPLICATION
NO. 138 OF 2002
01. Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon
Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. : Agril.,
R/o : Chandekasare,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist.
Ahmednagar.
02. Bhaskar Machindra Makone
Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. : Agril.,
R/o : Chandekasare,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist.
Ahmednagar.
03. Kisan Nabaji Hon
Age : 34 Yrs., Occ. : Agril.,
R/o : Chandekasare,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist.
Ahmednagar. [Abated
as per order dated
24/08/2016] .
04. Bhausaheb s/o Gopala Hon
Age : 21 Yrs., Occ. :
Education, R/o : Chandekasare,
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::
2 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. .... APPLICANTS/
Ahmednagar. [ORI.ACCUSED 7 TO 10]
VERSUS
01. The State of Maharashtra
02. Sahebrao Arjun Hon
Age : 50 Yrs.,Occ. Agril.
R/o : Jagde Phata,
Chandekasare, ... NON APPLICANT/
Tq. Kopargaon,Dist. [ORIGINAL
Ahmednagar. COMPLAINANT]
03. Arjun Dada Hon
Age : Major, Occ. Agril.,
R/o : Jagde Phata,
Chandekasare,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. :
Ahmednagar.
04. Sachin Sahebrao Hon
Age : Major, Occ. Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:56:22 :::
3 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
R/o : Jagde Phata,
Chandekasare,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. :
Ahmednagar.
05. Madhukar Sahebrao Hon
Age : Major, Occ. Agril.,
R/o : Jagde Phata,
ig Chandekasare,
Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. :
Ahmednagar. ..... NON APPLICANTS
.............................
Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b
Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. G.O.Wattamwar, A.P.P. for R - 1 - State.
Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for R - 2.
Mr. K.C.Sant, Advocate for R - 3 to 5.
..............................
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19th DECEMBER, 2016
.............................
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. Heard Mr. R.N.Dhorde, learned Senior
4 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
Advocate assisted by Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for
the Applicants, Mr. G.O.Wattamwar, learned A.P.P.
for the non-applicant No. 1 - State, Mr. R.R.Mantri,
learned Advocate for non-applicant No. 2 and Mr.
K.C.Sant, learned Advocate for non-applicant Nos. 3
to 5.
02. ig The applicants/accused have filed this
Revision Application challenging the Judgment passed
by the Sessions Court dismissing the Appeal filed by
the applicants and maintaining the Judgment passed
by the learned Magistrate convicting the applicants
[accused Nos. 7,8,9 and 10] for the offences
punishable u/ss 326,324,447 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. R.N.Dhorde, learned Senior
Advocate has stated that during the pendency of this
Revision Application, the applicant No. 3 [accused No.
9] has expired.
03. The learned Senior Advocate for the
applicants has made elaborate submissions and has
5 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
taken me through the record to point out omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies in the statements
and evidence of the witnesses, especially of Dr.
Shinde [P.W.11] and Dr. Kshirsagar [P.W.12] to urge
that the case of the prosecution is false and unreliable
and it can not be said that the prosecution has been
able to establish the guilt of the applicants beyond
doubt. However, after examining the record, going
through the evidence and the Judgment passed by
the Sessions Court as well as the Judgment passed by
the learned Magistrate, I find that the sub-ordinate
Courts have elaborately delved into all the relevant
aspects, have examined the evidence in the right
perspective and it can not be said that the
appreciation of evidence on record suffers from any
illegality or perversity, which necessitates the re-
appreciation of it by this Court.
04. The learned Senior Advocate for the
applicants then submitted that the conviction of the
applicants for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the
Indian Penal Code is unsustainable, as the evidence
6 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
on record is not sufficient to establish that the victims
Sachin and Sahebrao suffered grievous injuries. In
support of this submission, the learned Senior
Advocate has referred to the evidence of victim
Sachin, who has admitted that he had not gone to the
Corporation hospital and had not taken any treatment
from Dr.Shinde, though Dr. Shinde [P.W.11] has
deposed that he has treated victim Sachin, found that
he suffered grievous injury and then referred him to
the specialist-Dr. Kshirsagar. However, the evidence
of Dr. Kshirsagar [P.W.12] proves beyond doubt that
victim Sachin suffered fractures on both fore-arms at
lower ends with contusions and Dr.Kshirsagar has
explained how it falls in the category of grievous
injury. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
Dr. Kshirsagar. Apart from this, the evidence on
record proves beyond doubt that victim Sahebrao also
suffered grievous injury i.e. incised wound over the
left side of neck, 2 cm. X 1 cm. muscle deep. Though
a submission is made by the learned Senior Advocate
that the evidence of Dr. Shinde or Dr. Kshirsagar does
not show that the above injury suffered by Sahebrao
7 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
can be classified as grievous injury, considering the
nature of injury, it can not be said that the
conclusions of the sub-ordinate Courts on this point
are unsustainable. I see no reason to interfere in the
findings recorded by the sub-ordinate Courts
convicting the applicants for the offence punishable
u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code, the findings being
based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.
05. At this stage, the learned Senior Advocate
for the applicants submitted that except for the
incident in question, the applicants had not been
involved in any other crime/offence at any point of
time. It is submitted that the applicants are released
on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
05/08/2003 and though the applicants and the
complainants/victims are residing in the same village,
there has been no complaint by the victims against
the applicants. It is prayed by the applicants that
considering these facts lenient view be taken and the
sentence may be reduced for the period for which
the applicants had been in Jail.
8 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
06. Mr. R.R.Mantri, learned Advocate for non-
applicant No. 2 has submitted that though there is
nothing on record to show that the applicants have
mis-used the liberty after being released on bail by
this Court, the facts on record show that the conduct
of the applicants in prosecuting the matter before this
Court had not been proper and, therefore, they are
not entitled for any leniency. It is submitted that this
Court had passed order that if office objections are
not removed within stipulated time, the Revision
Application shall stand dismissed without reference to
the Court, those office objections were not removed
and the Revision Application was treated as
dismissed, however, the applicants filed Criminal
Application No. 1549 of 2003 in Criminal Application
No. 934 of 2002 in Criminal Revision Application No.
138 of 2002 and succeeded in getting the Revision
Application restored by making incorrect statements
that office objections were removed though factually
the office objections were not removed. It is
submitted that the applicants deliberately avoided to
implead the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5 [complainants]
9 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
as party to the Revision Application. In support of his
submissions, learned Advocate for non-applicant No.
2 relied on the Judgment given in the case of Raj
Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in
2016 (1) SCC 463. In my view the submissions
made by the Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 are
not relevant for considering whether lenient view is
required to be taken while considering the issue of
sentence.
Though Mr. R.R.Mantri, and Mr. K.C.Sant,
Advocates for the non-applicant Nos. 2 to
5/complainants and Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, learned
A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra have opposed the
alternate submission made on behalf of the
applicants, it is required to be accepted.
Hence, the following order :
(i) The Judgment passed by the learned
Magistrate and maintained by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge convicting the applicants for the
offences punishable u/ss 326,324 and 447 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the
10 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
order directing payment of fine is also maintained.
However, the order directing the applicants
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the
offence punishable u/s 326 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 1 year for the offence punishable u/s 324 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is modified
and it is directed that the applicants [accused No. 7
Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon, accused No.8 Bhaskar
Machindra Makone and accused No.10 Bhausaheb s/o
Gopala Hon] are sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for the period for which they had been
in Jail.
(ii) In addition, the applicants [accused No. 7
Raosaheb s/o Kashinath Hon, accused No.8 Bhaskar
Machindra Makone and accused No.10 Bhausaheb s/o
Gopala Hon] are directed to pay ` 20,000/- each
towards compensation as per Section 357-A of the
Indian Penal Code. This amount shall be deposited
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Kopargaon within 2 months from today. If the
11 Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
amount is not deposited by the applicants within time,
the learned Magistrate shall take steps to recover the
amount from the applicants, if necessary by resorting
to coercive steps.
On deposit of the amount of compensation,
` 5,000/- shall be given to the victim Sahebrao Arjun
Hon and ` 5,000/- shall be given to the victim Sachin
Sahebrao Hon. ig The balance amount of ` 50,000/- shall be
deposited with the State.
The Criminal Revision Application is partly
allowed in the above terms.
[Z.A.HAQ, J.]
KNP/Cr.Revn.Apln. 138.2002 - [J]
