Bombay High Court
Bharat Fakirchand Khillare & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 August, 2017
Bench: Sangitrao S. Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2002
1. Bharat s/o Fakirchand Khillare,
Age : 26 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Lakkadkot Area, Sambhaji Nagar,
Jalna, District Jalna
2. Sushila w/o Sopanrao Salve, (ABATED)
Age : 34 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Lakkadkot Area, Sambhaji Nagar, APPELLANTS
Jalna, District Jalna (ORIG. ACCUSED
NOS. 3 AND 4)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT
----
Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for Appellant No.1
Ms. R.P. Gaur, A.P.P. for the respondent/State
----
CORAM : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 4th AUGUST, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for appellant No.1
and the learned A.P.P.
2. The original accused Nos. 3 and 4 have
challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence
punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short), recorded by the
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:47:58 :::
2 criapl58-2002
learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in
Sessions Case No. 39 of 2000 on 30th November, 2001.
3. The informant Ranjana Ashok Khillare is the
wife of original accused No.1 Ashok. Appellant No.1
Bharat is the brother, while appellant No.2 Sushila was
the sister of original accused No.1. One Vijay
(original accused No. 2) is the elder brother, while
Kaushalyabai (original accused No. 5) is the mother of
original accused No.1.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that all the
accused, in furtherance of their common intention,
subjected the informant Ranjana to cruelty and further
attempted to commit her murder by setting her on fire.
After receiving the report from the informant, the
investigation was conducted and all the five accused
came to be chargesheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 34 of the
IPC.
5. The prosecution examined three witnesses,
including the informant before the Trial Court. After
evaluating the evidence of those witnesses, the Trial
Court came to hold that the prosecution failed to
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:47:58 :::
3 criapl58-2002
establish the guilt of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for the
above mentioned offences. Therefore, they came to be
acquitted of those offences. The learned Trial Judge
found sufficient evidence on record to establish guilt
of the present appellants for the offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC only
and not for the offence punishable under Section 498-A
of the IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three months. The appellants deposited the fine amount
before the Trial Court.
6. During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 2
- Sushila expired. The appeal stood abated against her
as per order dated 21st October, 2016.
7. The learned counsel for appellant No.1 submits
that the FIR was lodged by the informant in the heat of
anger because there were some family disputes. There
had been amicable settlement considering the close
relationship of the informant and appellant No.1. He
submits that even when the evidence of the informant was
recorded, she specifically stated that there has been
compromise between the appellants and herself as she did
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:47:58 :::
4 criapl58-2002
not wish to see them convicted. She further stated that
she was residing with accused No.1 and that she has no
trouble of any kind from the appellants. He submits
that only because the offence punishable under Section
307 of the IPC was non-compoundable, the learned Trial
Judge proceeded with the trial and ultimately convicted
the appellants.
8. The learned counsel for appellant No.1, on
instructions, submits that appellant No. 1 is not
pressing the grounds of objections raised against his
conviction and sentence in the appeal memo. He submits
that appellant No. 1 was in jail from 22nd May, 1997 to
18th June, 1997 as an under-trial prisoner and further,
he is in jail from 27th June, 2017 onwards after he came
to be arrested in execution of the non-bailable warrant
issued by this Court for securing his presence. He
submits that considering the fact that there has been
amicable settlement between appellant No. 1 and the
informant and that their relations are now cordial,
appellant No.1 may be shown leniency and sentenced to
the period of imprisonment which he has already
undergone.
::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 02:47:58 :::
5 criapl58-2002
9. The learned A.P.P. opposes this submission made
on behalf of appellant No.1.
10. The incident has taken place in the year 2000.
The period of about seventeen years has been elapsed
after the date of the incident. Appellant No. 1 is the
brother-in-law of the informant. The informant is
happily residing with the brother of appellant No.1.
The relations between appellant No.1 and the informant
are cordial. In the circumstances, I am of the view
that no good purpose would be served by sending
appellant No. 1 behind the bars for a period longer than
that has already undergone by him. Even this punishment
would, remind him to refrain from indulging into any
criminal activities. In the circumstances, I accept the
prayer made on behalf of appellant No.1 and allow the
appeal partly with the following order:-
O R D E R
(i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 30th
November, 2001 passed by the 1st Adhoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions
Case No. 39 of 2000, convicting appellant
6 criapl58-2002
No.1 of the offence punishable under Section
307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, is maintained as it is.
(iii) The impugned order of sentence passed against
appellant No.1 is modified and he is sentenced
to suffer the imprisonment for the period which
he has already undergone.
(iv) Appellant No. 1 be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
(v) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(vi) The authenticated copy of this judgment and
order be supplied to the learned counsel for appellant
No.1, at his request.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL]
JUDGE
npj/criapl58-2002
