Bombay High Court
Vinod Pandhari Kumbhare And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 27 July, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
revn115.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 115 OF 2016
1. Vinod Pandhari Kumbhare
aged about 35 yrs.,
r/o Plot No.91, Balaji Nagar, Nagpur.
2. Ashwin @ Monu Liladhar Khadagale
aged about 34 yrs., r/o plot No.31,
Bhagwan Nagar, Bank Colony,
Adiwasi Society, Nagpur.
3. Anwar Khan Karim Khan,
aged about 33 yrs., r/o Mariyam Nagar,
Nagpur, P. S. Jaripatka,
Nagpur. :: APPLICNATS
.. Versus
..
State of Maharashtra
through P.S.O., Sakkardara
Police Station, Nagpur. :: NON-APPLICANT
...................................................................................................................................
Shri A. P. Raghute, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri H. D. Dubey, A.P.P. for the non-applicant.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 27th JULY, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Notice. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for the non-
applicant.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally by consent.
4. On going through the judgment impugned in this revision
application recording concurrent findings of fact in respect of the
prosecution bringing home the guilt of these applicants for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, I do
not find any illegality or perversity committed by the Courts below. Of
course, learned Counsel for the applicants would say that admittedly
there was property dispute between the complainant and her family on
the one hand and Manoj Khandagale and Vinod Khandagale on the
other and that was the reason why a false report was lodged against
these applicants and one more accused. He submits that a civil suit
between these parties was decided in favour of the party of Manoj and
that of complainantand that civil appeal was pending when the first
information report was lodged. These contentions, however, cannot be
accepted as no specific stand in this regard has been taken and put to
the prosecution witnesses and thus no proper foundation has been
laid.
5. In the F.I.R. (Exh.16), there is a reason given by the
complainant P.W.-1 Suman for the assault made on her and her
children. This reason is of the demand being made by Manoj for
transfer of some piece of land by the present husband of the
complainant in his favour and it being turned down by the husband of
the complainant. According to the complainant, as these allegations
are made in the F.I.R., Manoj and these applicants, who are associates
of the said Manoj, were holding a grudge against her. She says that for
this reason the assault was made on her and her children in the night
between 05/9/2007 and 06/9/2006. No material has been brought on
record by these applicants so as to create any doubt about such
prosecution story. On the contrary, the reasons stated by the
complainant behind the attack made upon her seem to be a probable
cause behind the incident and in the absence of any material being
brought on record about filing of a false complaint, the contention that
being aggrieved by adverse decision of the Civil Court, the complainant
lodged false complaint against them cannot be accepted. It is also not
known as to whether or not the complainant or her children were
party to the civil suit as there is absolutely nothing available on record
to make any inference in this regard. In these circumstances, the
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot
be upset or cannot be seen to be illegal or perverse. The evidence of
material prosecution witnesses; P.W.-1 Suman, P.W.-2 Amol and P.W.-
4 Shweta is consistent and inspires confidence. There is no delay
occurred in lodging of the F.I.R. Thus, there is absolutely no ground
made out for making any interference with the findings of fact made
by the Courts below.
6. On the question of quantum of sentence, however, I find
that the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicants can be
sympathetically considered for the reason that these applicants do not
have criminal antecedents against them and they appear to be
belonging to well to do family. It might be that because of some
property dispute, these applicants may have gone astray and
committed this crime. But, one of the purposes of punishment being
reformation, the applicants with their clean background deserve to be
given an opportunity to contemplate and improve themselves. Viewed
in this perspective, I find that the quantum of sentence deserves to be
reduced to one month for both the offences in stead of three months
for the offence punishable under Sections 452 I.P.C. and two months
for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., and that should
meet the ends of justice.
7. In the result, the revision application is partly allowed to
the extent of only quantum of punishment awarded to these applicants
and it is directed that while the conviction given to these application
for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. is
confirmed, the punishments awarded for these offences be reduced in
the following manner.:
a) Each of the applicants shall undergo sentence of simple
imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable
under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and shall also
undergo sentence of imprisonment for one month for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and shall pay fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one
thousand only) for each of these offences, and upon failure
to pay fine amounts, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of seven days.
b) Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
c) The applicants shall be given benefit of set-off under
Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the period
of detention already undergone by them.
d) Rest of the judgments and orders of the Courts below
are confirmed.
JUDGE
wwl
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : W.W. Lichade, P.A.
Uploaded on :29/7/2016
