Bombay High Court
Babu @ Pravin Ramdasji Deogade vs The State Of Mah. Thr. The Pso ... on 29 May, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apeal615.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.615/2003
Babu alias Pravin Ramdasji Deogade,
aged about 24 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Hariram Nagar, Pulgaon,
Tq. Deoli, Distt. Wardha. ..Appellant.
..Vs..
The State of Maharashtra,
through the P.S.O., Pulgaon,
Tq. Deoli, Distt. Wardha. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri D.S. Dharaskar, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE : 29.5.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri D.S. Dharaskar, Advocate for the appellant and Ms.
Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for the respondent.
2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Sessions
Court by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
According to the prosecution, on 5 th May, 2001 at about 9 p.m.
2 apeal615.03
complainant - Prakash was present in the shop of P.W.1 Shailendra, the
accused came there and inflicted injury by a knife. According to the
prosecution, the investigation was undertaken and after completing the
necessary formalities, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for
offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
As the above offence is triable by Court of Sessions, the learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The charge was
framed against the accused and read over and explained to him, the accused
did not accept the guilt and, therefore, he is tried. After the trial, the Sessions
Court found that the prosecution has not been able to prove guilt of the
accused for offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,
however, the Sessions Court has recorded that the prosecution has proved
beyond doubt that the accused inflicted injury on the person of the
complainant by knife and the act of the accused was within the purview of
offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly
the accused is convicted and sentenced as per the judgment.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that there are
contradictions in the evidence of the complainant - Prakash (P.W.6) and the
material on record is not sufficient to conclude that the prosecution has proved
beyond doubt that the accused has committed the offence and is liable to be
convicted and sentenced.
3 apeal615.03
4. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant and
the learned A.P.P. I have examined the record and gone through the impugned
judgment. The prosecution has examined Dr. Achintalwar (P.W.5) to prove
that the complainant - Prakash was brought to the Rural Hospital, Pulgaon
where P.W.5 was working as the Medical Officer at the relevant time, that he
had examined the complainant- Prakash and found two injuries on his person.
The prosecution has examined Dr. Ravi Khandare (P.W.3) who was working at
Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram where the complainant - Prakash was referred.
This witness (P.W.3) has also deposed that there were two injuries on the
person of complainant - Prakash. Complainant - Prakash (P.W.6) stated in his
evidence that the accused stabbed the complainant on his back by a knife.
Doctors (P.W.5 and P.W.3) have opined that the injuries which were found on
the person of the complainant - Prakash were possible by a sharp edged object.
The complainant - Prakash is cross-examined on behalf of the accused,
however, nothing is brought on record on the basis of which it can be said that
the evidence given by complainant - Prakash can be doubted.
5. The Sessions Court has exhaustively dealt with the evidence on the
record and I find that that the conclusions of the Sessions Court are proper and
cannot be faulted with. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the
conclusions recorded by the Sessions Court, convicting the appellant - accused
for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
4 apeal615.03
6. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
accused was not involved in any other crime / offence either earlier or after the
incident till date and now he is working as Florist. Considering the nature of
incident and accepting the statement made on behalf of the appellant that the
accused was not involved in any other crime / offence prior to the incident and
is not involved in any crime or offence subsequently also, in my view, the
sentence imposed by the Sessions Court is required to be modified.
7. Hence, the following order:
(i) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.
(ii) The sentence passed by the Sessions Court requiring the
appellant - accused to pay fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days is maintained.
(iii) However, the order passed by the Sessions Court sentencing the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and it is
directed that the period for which the accused was in custody be treated as the
period of imprisonment.
(iv) The judgment passed by the Sessions Court is modified accordingly.
(v) The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
