Pundlik Mohan Kharkar vs State Of Mah.Thr.Pso Chandraur
2017 Latest Caselaw 8962 Bom

 cra110.06.J.odt                           1




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


        CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2006

          Pundlik son of Mohan Kharkar,
          Aged about 32 years,
          Occupation: Labourer,
          Resident of--                                     ....... APPELLANT

                                   ...V E R S U S...

 1]       The State of Maharashtra, through
          the Police Station Officer, Police Station,
          Warora, Distirct Chandrapur.

 2]       Suresh Vitthal Meshram,
          Aged about 26 years,
          Occupation: Agriculturist.

 3]       Nirdosh Maroti Meshram,
          Aged about 35 years,
          Occupation: Agriculturist.

 4]       Vitthal Maroti Meshram,
          Aged about 55 years,
          Occupation: Agriculturist,
          Nos. 2 to 4 all residents of Takli,
          District Chandrapur.                               ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Appellant.
          Ms. T.H. Udeshi, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
          Ms. Jayshree Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          CORAM:            ROHIT B. DEO, J. 

          DATE:             22  nd  NOVEMBER, 2017.









 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]               The   applicant   is   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   dated

09.01.2006 in Sessions Trial 15/2003 delivered by the 1 st Ad-hoc

Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, by and under which, the

respondents 2 to 4 are acquitted of offence punishable under

section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The judgment of acquittal is not challenged by the State and the

applicant, who is the complainant, has invoked revisional

jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2] Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the

applicant, Ms. T.H. Udeshi, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent 1/State and Ms. Jayshree Mahajan,

the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4.

3] At the outset, it must be noted, that the revision has

its genesis in an incident which took place on 09.04.1997.

Apparently, there was a free fight between two factions.

The applicant herein along with Vitthal Kharkar and Deepak

Kharkhar faced prosecution under sections 323, 341, 326 and 307

read with section 34 of IPC and were tried in Sessions Case

112/1997. The applicant and the other accused were convicted of

offence punishable under sections 323, 326 and 341 of IPC, by

judgment dated 09.01.2006. The said judgment was challenged

before this Court in Criminal Appeal 43/2006 which is decided by

judgment dated 22.11.2017. This Court partly allowed the appeal

and scaled down the conviction under section 326 IPC to 324 IPC

and extended the benefit of section 6 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused.

4] The respondents 2 and 4 are the injured and star

witnesses in the cross appeal which is decided by this Court by the

judgment referred to supra while respondent 3 is also a

prosecution witness therein. The applicant herein, as noted supra,

is an accused along with two others.

5] Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the

applicant submits that the appreciation of evidence is infirm and

dangerously borders on perversity and this is a fit case for this

Court to invoke revisional jurisdiction. I am not inclined to agree.

6] I have given my anxious consideration to the

judgment of acquittal, which is not challenged by the State.

The learned Sessions Judge, has noted that the evidence of P.W.3

Pundlik and that of P.W.4 Pandurang is inconsistent in as much as

while P.W.4 Pandurang has deposed that accused Vitthal injured

him by a stick blow, P.W.3 Pundlik is absolutely silent on Vitthal

assaulting P.W.4 Pandurang. The appreciation of evidence of the

learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the

judgment impugned is unexceptionable, in so far as the assault on

P.W.4 Pandurang is concerned.

7] The applicant Pundlik Kharkar has deposed that

accused Suresh assaulted Pandurang with stick on the back and

left hand. However, the medical evidence is inconsistent with the

said version and injury certificate Exh.30 does not indicate any

injury on the back or left hand of P.W.4 Pandurang. In so far as

the applicant herein P.W.3 Pundlik is concerned, he did suffer two

contusions on his left hand. However, his deposition is that the

accused Vitthal assaulted him with stick on his right hand, and the

version is therefore, suspect, as is rightly noted by the learned

Sessions Judge in paragraph 14 of the judgment impugned.

The appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is

unexceptionable and I do not see any compelling reason to

exercise revisional powers to disturb the finding of acquittal.

8] The revision is sans merit and is rejected.

JUDGE

NSN