Bombay High Court

Babu Yeshwant Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 December, 2017

Bench: S. K. Kotwal

                                                          Cri.Appeal No.534/2002
                                          1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.534 OF 2002


 Babu s/o Yeshwant Jadhav
 Age 28 years, Occu. Auti-Rickshaw Driver,
 R/o Sonwati, Taluka Latur,
 District Latur                         ...   APPELLANT
                                   (Original Accused No.2)
        VERSUS

 The State of Maharashtra
 (Copy to be served on
 Public Prosecutor, High Court
 of Judicature of Bombay,
 Bench at Aurangabad)                              ...     RESPONDENT

                                 .....
 Shri Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for appellant
 Shri S.S. Dande, A.P.P. for respondent
                                 .....

                                 CORAM:       SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.

                  Date of reserving judgment : 15th December, 2017
                  Date of pronouncing judgment : 20th December, 2017


 JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is doirected against the judgment and

order of conviction dated 27.8.2002, passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.67/1997. Appellant is

original accused No.2. Respondent is State of Maharashtra.

2. Facts leading to institution of this appeal are that,

accused Nos.1 to 6 were prosecuted for the offences punishable

under Sections 147, 148, 452 read with 149, Section 326 read

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

with 149 and Section 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal

Code. Prosecution case in brief is that, informant Shivaji

Pandharinath Dopare (Tribhuwan) used to reside at village

Sonwati, with his parents and two brothers namely Hanumant

and Balaji. At the relevant time of the occurrence, Balaji was at

Parbhani. Two months before the occurrence of incident,

autorickshaw of accused No.2 Babu Jadhav was burnt by some

unknown persons. However, he suspected that the informant

and his brothers were involved in commission of that crime. On

1.10.1996 at about 7.15 p.m., when informant Shivaji Dopare

(Tribhuwan) was having his dinner along with his mother

Trivenibai (P.W.2) and brother Hanumant (P.W.3), that time,

accused No.2 Babu came towards their house, armed with sword

and started abusing the informant and his family members.

When informant or his family members did not come outside

their house, accused No.2 forcibly entered inside the house and

dragged Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1) outside the house. By that time,

accused No.1 Shivaji Jadhav, accused No.3 Hanmant, accused

No.4 Laxman, accused No.5 Jalsabai reached on the spot.

Accused No.1 Shivaji Jadhav assaulted Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1) by

inflicting sword blows on his head. Accused No.5 Jalsabai was

holding stick in her hand. When Trivenibai (P.W.2) and

Hanumant (P.W.3) tried to intervene, that time they were also

assaulted by the accused persons by sword and sticks. Hearing

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

shouts, villagers namely Dagadu Walse, Venkat Kurwade and

Rajiv Kurwade and uncle of the informant namely Prabhu Dopare

rushed on the spot and they tried to rescue the informant and his

family members. That time, accused No.1 Shivaji inflicted sword

blow on the head of Prabhu Dopare. At last, the informant

Shivaji Dopare and his family members managed to get rescued

from the clutches of accused persons. They immediately rushed

to Rural Police Station, Latur. Shivaji Dopare lodged the F.I.R.

(Exh.44) to Rural Police Station, Latur, on the basis of which

Crime No.126/1996 was registered under Sections 147, 148,

326, 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The

injured were referred to Civil Hospital, Latur. Medical Officer

examined injured Shivaji Dopare, Triveni Dopare, Hanumant

Dopare and Prabhu Dopare. During the course of investigation,

spot panchanama (Exh.55) was prepared. Blood stained clothes

of the informant were seized under seizure memo (Exh.47).

Accused were arrested and as per disclosure statement of the

accused persons, the weapons of the offences were recovered.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted

before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur.

3. Offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this

case was committed to the Sessions Court, Latur. Charge

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

(Exh.3) was framed against accused No.1 to 6 for commission of

the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452 read with

Section 149; 326 read with Section 149; Section 307 read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial.

4. Defence of the accused is that, on the date of

incident, informant, his brother Hanumant, one Lahu and Balaji

assaulted the accused No.2 Babu and when other accused tried

to intervene, that time they were also assaulted by the informant

and his companions.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

placed on record, learned trial Court pleased to convict accused

No.1 Shivaji Yashwant Jadhav for commission of the offence

punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and

instead of sentencing him to any punishment, directed to release

him on entering into good behaviour bond of Rs.5000/- for the

period of three years under Section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958. Only accused No.2 was convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code

and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six

months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Accused No.2 was also

convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he was

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

pay fine of Rs.500/-. The substantive sentences were to run

concurrently. Remaining accused Nos.4 to 6 were acquitted of all

charges.

6. This judgment and order of conviction and sentence

is challenged only by accused No.2 Babu Yashwant Jadhav.

7. Heard strenuous and lengthy submissions of Shri

Vikram Dhorde, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Dande,

learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that, there was inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. and

when accused and informant party was of inimical terms, the

unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution

case. He placed reliance on Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil

Nadu reported in AIR 1973 SC 501.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant also raised

objection that scribe of the F.I.R. is not examined by the

prosecution and, therefore, the contents of the F.I.R. are not duly

proved. He also points out that, even the witnesses on recovery

panchanama of the weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

are not examined by the prosecution.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also raised

objection that, prosecution has withheld important witnesses

such as Prabhu Dopare who sustained injuries while trying to

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

rescue the informant from the clutches of the accused. He also

points out that, some other villagers also reached on the spot to

rescue the informant and his family members, but they are

withheld by the prosecution. His submission is that, when the

accused and informant are on inimical terms, corroboration by

independent witnesses as well as by spot panchanama is

necessary. He placed reliance on Golbar Hussain and others

Vs. State of Assam and another, reported in [2015 (11) SCC

242], wherein Apex Court observed that, it is the quality of

witnesses that matters and not the quantity, when the related

witness was examined and found credible. In such case, non

examination of an independent witness would not be fatal to the

prosecution case.

10. Contention of learned defence counsel is that, the

witnesses examined by the prosecution are contradicting their

previous statements before the police and they are not

trustworthy witnesses. Even spot panchanama does not show

that the door of the house of informant was in damaged

condition though informant stated that accused No.2 broke open

the door. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.

11. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that, when the

testimony of informant Shivaji Dopare is fully corroborated by

prompt lodging F.I.R. and medical evidence in the form of injury

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

certificate, other corroboration in the form of testimony of

independent witnesses is not at all necessary. Learned A.P.P.

also points out that, the incident occurred at 7.15 p.m. and police

referred the injury to Civil Hospital at about 8.30 p.m. as

reflected from M.L.C. Certificate of Shivaji Dopare. This indicates

that, after the occurrence, the first information was immediately

lodged to police station. According to A.P.P., there is no delay in

lodging the F.I.R.

12. To substantiate charges against accused, prosecution

examined 5 witnesses including informant Shivaji Dopare

(P.W.1), his mother Smt. Trivenibai (P.W.2), brother Hanumant

(P.W.3) and investigating officers Madhavrao Dhere (P.W.4) as

well as Police Inspector Shankar Mankkawar (P.W.5). Out of

these 5 witnesses, Police Inspector Shankar Mankkawar (P.W.5)

only recorded statement of one witness at the fag end of

investigation and filed charge sheet. Therefore, his evidence

does not carry much importance.

13. The important fact which must be noted at the outset

is that, the defence has admitted all injury certificates of the

injured persons at Exh.32 to Exh.35. Therefore, the objection

raised by learned defence counsel regarding non examination of

medical officer, who examined the injured, does not carry any

importance. Admitted fact need not be proved by examining

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

medical witness.

14. After going through the oral evidence of Shivaji

Dopuare, Triveni Dopare (P.W.2) and Hanumant Dopare (P.W.3),

it emerges that, these three witnesses have categorically and

consistently deposed on oath that on the date and time of

incident, at about 7.15 p.m., accused No.2 initially abused and

they forcibly entered inside the house of informant Shivaji

Dopare and other witnesses and forcibly dragged Shivaji Dopare

outside his house and injured him by inflicting sword blow. When

Trivenibai (P.W.2) and Hanumant (P.W.3) tried to rescue Shivaji

Dopare, that time they were assaulted by accused No.1 to 3 by

sharp cutting weapons. Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1) specified that,

accused No.1 Shivaji Jadhav inflicted sword blow on the right

palm of this witness and accused No.3 Hanmant inflicted sword

blow on his right knee, Hari Jadhav inflicted sword blow on right

hand wrist joint and on biceps of right hand. Shivaji Dopare

(P.W.1) is specific regarding sword blow by accused No.2 Babu

on his right leg toe. This version is fully corroborated by MLC

certificate Exh.32 of Shivaji Dopare, which shows that, total 5

incised wounds and one abrasion was found on the body of

Shivaji Dopare as described below :-

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

Sr. Details of Injury/ Site Size of Nature of Weapon Age of No. Injury Injury Injury used injury 1 Incised wound on Rt. 6 cm. x 1.0 Simple Sharp Within 12 Side of body on scapular cm. x 1.0 weapon hrs. region cm.

2 Incised wound on Rt. Leg 2 cm x 1 --"-- --"-- --"--

         M/3                      cm. x 1
                                  cm.
    3    Incised wound obliquely 6 cm x 4            --"--         --"--          --"--
         on Rt. Hand on dorsum cm x 1 cm
         Dorsal tendered severed
    4    Incised wound on Rt.        3 cm x 1        --"--         --"--          --"--
         Foot on dorsum              cm x 0.5
                                     cm.
    5    Incised wound on Lt.        2 cm. x 1       --"--         --"--          --"--
         Middle finger               cm x 0.5
                                     cm.
    6    Abrasion on Rt. Scapular 4 cm x 0.5         --"--         --"--          --"--
                                  cm. x 0.5
                                  cm.

15. The injuries found on the body of Triveni are

described at MLC Certificate Exh.33 as under :-




  Sr.      Details of Injury/ Site    Size of      Nature of    Weapon          Age of
  No.              Injury             Injury        Injury       used           injury
    1    Incised wound on Lt.        3 cm. x 0.5    Simple        Sharp       Within 12
         middle finger               cm. x 0.5                   weapon         hrs.
                                     cm.
    2    Abrasion on Rt. arm         4 cm. x 2       --"--      Hard and          --"--
                                     cm.                       blunt object
    3    Contusion on Rt. breast     3 cm. x 2.5     --"--         --"--          --"--
                                     cm.
    4    Incised wound upto          6 cm x 3.5      --"--        Sharp           --"--
         muscle deep oblique on      cm. x 2.5                   weapon
         lateral aspect of Lt. Leg   cm.
         M/ 3 per

16. The injuries on the body of Hanmant Dopare (P.W.3)

are described below in the injury certificate Exh.34 :-

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

Sr. Details of Injury/ Site Size of Nature of Weapon Age of No. Injury Injury Injury used injury 1 Incised wound on Rt. leg 3 cm. x 0.5 Simple Sharp Within 12 m/3 cm. x 0.5 weapon hrs. cm.

2 Incised wound on Hand 3 cm. x 0.5 Simple --"-- --"--

at the site of Head of 3rd cm. x 1 metacarpel overlying cm.

3 Incised wound in middle Upto bone Simple --"-- --"--

         phalynx of Little finger    deep 3
                                     cm. x 1
                                     cm.
    4    Incised wound overlying     Upto bone     --"--         --"--          --"--
         on Rt. ring finger          deep 3
                                     cm. x 1
                                     cm.
    5    Incised wound on Lt.        Upto bone     --"--         --"--          --"--
         Forearm                     deep 6
                                     cm. x 1
                                     cm. x 0.5
                                     cm.

17. From the testimony of Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1), it

emerges that, accused caused incised wound by sword on both

hands and leg of Hanmant Dopare and incised wound on fingers

and right breast and right leg of Trivenibai Dopare. Same

wounds are reflected in the above described MLC Crtificate of

Hanmant Dopare and Triveni Dopare. Even Trivenibai (P.W.2)

corroborated the version of informant by deposing that at the

time of incident, accused No.2 forcibly entered in her house and

dragged Shivaji outside the house. According to Trivenibai,

accused No.2 was armed with sword and Shivaji Dopare was

assaulted by sword blows by accused No.1 and 2. According to

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

this witness, the accused No.3 Hanmant was armed with axe. He

has also described injuries sustained by her at the hands of

accused No.1 to 3. Even Hanumant (P.W.3) repeated similar

occurrence during his evidence.

18. No doubt there is slight variance between the

testimony of these witnesses regarding the manner in which

accused No.2 made his forcible entry in his house, the number of

blows inflicted by each accused etc. However, these

discrepancies emerging in the testimony of these witnesses are

very minor and those discrepancies do not go to the root of the

basic version of these witnesses. I find that, the discrepancies

emerging in the testimony of these witnesses do not shake the

basic version of these witnesses and, therefore, deserve to be

ignored.

19. Learned defence counsel has rightly pointed out that

the version of Shivaji Dopare regarding break opening the door

of the house by kick by accused No.2 and instigation by accused

No.5 is improvement at the stage of evidence. Such version is

not mentioned in the F.I.R. However, the improvement at the

stage of evidence is absolutely extremely minor. In the F.I.R., it

is mentioned that, "Accused No.2 entered in my house, armed

with sword and dragged me outside the house and thereafter

assaulted me by sword". Thus, the improvement is only

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

regarding opening of the door by kick. Thus, it cannot be said

that the recitals of F.I.R. (Exh.44) are totally in variance with the

oral testimony of Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1).

20. Even in the cross-examination of Trivenibai (P.W.2),

the improvements have been brought on record are regarding

the exact weapon held by accused No.3 Hanmant in his hand, the

exact part of the body on which blows were inflicted by accused.

However, it cannot be ignored that, these all witnesses are

examined after lapse of more than 5 years from the date of

occurrence. Therefore, such slight variance is just and natural

due to fading of memory, on account of passage of time. Same

thing is regarding version of Hanmant P.W.3. Thus, after careful

scrutiny of oral evidence on record, I am fully satisfied that the

witnesses are neither contradicting each other on material

particulars nor their statements are inconsistent with their

statements before the police on material particulars. However, in

the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of

Gujarat reported in [AIR 1983 Supreme Court 753], the

Apex Court ruled that :-

"Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies emerged in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The reasons are obvious :-

(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which taken place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him - perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment".

21. On the other hand, though learned defence counsel

has tried to show that accused are on inimical terms with

informant and his family members, no admission has been

brought on record by defence counsel which indicates that, since

before the occurrence of the incident, the relations in between

accused and the informant family were strained. Even the police

report lodged by one Gaikwad against the informant, does not

connect the accused in any manner. Thus, the contentions of

learned defence counsel that the accused and informant were on

inimical terms is only imaginary contention and without any

substance on record.

22. Though learned defence counsel has tried to

substantiate that there is inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R., the

F.I.R. (Exh.44) indicates that it was lodged on 1.10.1996 i.e. on

the date of occurrence though offence was registered at midnight

i.e. on 2.10.1996 at 00.15 Hrs. Even the MLC certificate of

Shivaji Dopare (Exh.32) indicates that, he was taken to Civil

Hospital, Latur by Police Constable Kamble from Police Station,

Latur at about 8.40 p.m. on 1.10.1996 i.e. the date of occurrence

of the incident. It means that, the incident occurred at 7.15 p.m.

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

on 1.10.1996, and the informant was medically examined at Civil

Hospital, Latur at 8.40 p.m. i.e. within two hours from the time

of occurrence of the incident. This indicates that, after

occurrence, immediately the informant approached the police.

Therefore, there was no time for concoction of false evidence

against the accused persons. In fact, in absence of previous

inimical terms, the informant had no reason to lodge false report

against the accused persons by creating false evidence.

Therefore, false implication of the accused on account of delay in

lodging F.I.R. is absolutely impossible. In the circumstances, the

ratio of Thulia Kali Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (cited supra), is

not applicable in the case at hand and it can be distinguished on

facts.

23. Regarding objection raised by learned defence

counsel about non examination of scribe of the F.I.R., it is suffice

to say that, when informant Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1) has deposed

before the Court and proved the contents of the F.I.R. (Exh.44),

the examination of the scribe to prove the contents is absolutely

not necessary. By examining investigating officer (P.W.4),

opportunity has been awarded to the defence to prove the

omissions which have been brought on record in the cross-

examination of Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1). Therefore, due to non-

examination of scribe of the F.I.R., no prejudice has been caused

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

to the accused.

24. Learned defence counsel has raised objection

regarding non examination of panchas on recovery panchanama.

However, neither the weapon of the offences were shown to the

injured witnesses nor those are identified by these witnesses.

The prosecution case is totally established on the basis of oral

testimony of injured, informant and injured eye witnesses.

Therefore, non examiantion of panchas on recovery panchanama

does not hold any importance. In the case at hand, Shivaji

Dopare (P.W.1), Trivenibai (P.W.2) and Hanumant (P.W.3) are

definitely related witnesses. However, on that count alone, their

testimony cannot be disbelieved if otherwise they are trustworthy

witnesses.

25. Taking into consideration defence of the accused that

they were assaulted by informant and his brothers, the presence

of the accused on the spot of the incident is an admitted fact by

the accused. To prove their defence, accused have neither filed

and proved the counter F.I.R. lodged by them to Police Station,

Latur nor they have examined any defence witnesses to show

that on the date and time of the incident accused themselves

were assaulted by informant and his companion. In the

circumstances, when accused admit their presence on the spot of

the occurrence, but they cannot prove that the informant were

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

the aggressor party, they cannot claim benefit of doubt only on

account of non-examination of independent witnesses.

26. No doubt, from the evidence of Shivaji Dopare

(P.W.1) it emerges that his uncle Prabhu Dopare as well as some

other villagers reached on the spot to rescue the informant.

These persons are not examined by prosecution. However, when

testimony of informant Shivaji Dopare (P.W.1) corroborated by

Trivenibai (P.W.2) and Hanumant (P.W.3) is trustworthy and

when their oral evidence is corroborated by medical evidence in

the form of admitted medico legal certificate (Exh.32 to Exh.34),

additional corroboration by these independent witnesses is not at

all necessary. Even in the case of "Golbar Hussain Vs. State of

Assam" (supra), the Apex Court has made the legal position

absolutely clear that, when related witness was examined and

found credible, in such case, non examination of an independent

witness would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Therefore, on

account of non examination of independent witnesses, the

truthful testimony of informant, his mother P.W.2 and brother

P.W.3, cannot be disbelieved.

27. In view of above discussion, I have come to the

conclusion that, on the basis of trustworthy testimony of Shivaji

Dopare (P.W.1), Trivenibai (P.W.2) and Hanumant (P.W.3),

which is corroborated by medical evidence, Exh.32 to Exh.34,

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that, on the

above said date, time and place, accused No.2 voluntarily caused

simple hurt to Shivaji Dopare by committing house trespass in

his house and thereby committed offence punishable under

Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction

recorded by the learned trial Court against accused No.2 under

Sections 452, 324 of the Indian Penal Code is proper and needs

no interference.

28. While examining whether the sentence and

punishment imposed by trial Court is correct and proper, it has

come to my notice that, though benefit of Section 4(1) of the

Probation of Offenders Act was extended in favour of accused

Nos.1 and 3, the trial Court refused to extend that benefit in

favour of appellant - original accused No.2. Only reason

assigned by the trial Court is that, accused No.2 had dragged the

informant Shivaji Dopare out of his house and assaulted him. No

other ground has been assigned by learned trial Court for

refusing to extend the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958.

29. In fact, the offence committed by accused Nos.1 to 3

is almost identicial and all of them used deadly weapon like

sword for voluntarily causing hurt to the informant. However, for

no reasonable cause, trial Court discriminated in between

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

accused No.1, 3 and accused No.2. On other hand, even accused

No.2 is permanent resident of same village Sonwati, Taluka and

District Latur and he has no criminal antecedents. It cannot be

ignored that, at the time of commission of the offence, accused

No.2 Babu Yeshwant Jadhav was only 23 years old young boy.

Since 2002 accused No.2 is on bail. Therefore, after lapse of 15

years, due to pendency of this Criminal Appeal, it will be not

proper to send him in jail to undergo the sentence imposed by

learned trial Court.

30. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, I

hold that, it is desirable that benefit of Section 4(1) of Probation

of Offenders Act deserves to be extended in favour of appellant -

accused No.2 and he shall be directed to pay compensation of

Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) to informant Shivaji

Pandharinath Dopare and compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees

two thousand) to Trivenibai Pandhari Dopare under Section 5(1)

of the Probation of Offenders Act.

31. It follows that, this appeal deserves to be partly

allowed and the sentence imposed on appellant - accused No.2

Babu Yeshwant Jadhav, deserves to be set aside and order

regarding accused No.2 be modified as under :

32. Hence I pass the following order :

Cri.Appeal No.534/2002

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal No.534/2002 is partly allowed.

(ii) Conviction of accused No.2 Babu Yeshwant Jadhav

under Sections 452, 324 of the Indian Penal Code is

confirmed. However, the order of sentence and

punishment passed by trial Court against accused No.2

is set aside and instead, the appellant - accused No.2

Babu Yeshwant Jadhav be released on his entering

upon good behaviour bond of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five

thousand) without surety, to appear and receive

sentence when called upon during the period of next

three years and in the meantime, to keep the peace

and be of good behaviour.

(iii) Appellant - accused No.2 shall pay compensation of

Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) to informant Shivaji

Pandharinath Dopare and compensation of Rs.2000/-

(Rupees two thousand) to Trivenibai Pandhari Dopare

under Section 5(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act,

1958.

(iv) Good behaviour bond be executed before the trial

Court and compensation amount be deposited before

the trial Court within one month from the date of

passing of this order.