Bombay High Court
Baliram S/O Gurudayal Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 September, 2017
Bench: Swapna Joshi
1 Judg 270917 apeal 105.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2003
Baliram Gurudayal Rathod,
Aged about 52 years, Occ.- Labour,
R/o.-Jodmoha, District Yavatmal
[Police Station Yavatmal -Rural]. .... Appellant.
-Versus-
The State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Yavatmal-Rural, Yavatmal. .... Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.S. Ambatkar, Counsel h/f Mr. P.R. Agrawal, Counsel for appellant.
Mr. S.B. Bissa, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.
September, 2017.
Dated : 27th
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (hereinafter
will be referred as 'the accused') against the judgment and order passed by
the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial
No.105 of 2000 on 17-01-2003, whereby the learned trial Judge had
convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment
for six months.
2] I have heard Mr. A.S. Ambatkar, Counsel h/f Mr. P.R. Agrawal,
the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. With their assistance,
I have carefully gone through the record of the prosecution case.
2 Judg 270917 apeal 105.03.odt
3] The facts leading to prefer this appeal can be summarised as
under :-
Complainant Sevalal Jadhav was the resident of Jodmoha,
District Yavatmal. The accused persons were also the residents of the
same village. On the date of incident i.e. on 26-01-2000, at about 7.00 pm,
complainant Sewalal (PW-1) was taking meals with his brother Paya
(PW-2). At that time, the accused persons approached at the place of
incident. It is the case of the prosecution, that Gajanan (accd.) was holding
sword stick in his hand. Gajanan assaulted by means of sword stick on the
abdomen and right rib of PW-1. Parobai and one Vijay caught hold of
PW-1. Gajanan also assaulted Paya by means of sword stick. Baliram
(appellant) assaulted PW-1 by means of fist and kick blows. It is the case
of the prosecution, that the complainant had lent an amount of Rs.300/- to
Baliram (appellant) and the complainant demanded the said amount from
him 2/3 days prior to the incident. Therefore, the incident had taken place.
After the incident, the complainant was taken to the hospital. His complaint
was recorded by Head Constable Mahadeo in the Main Hospital, Yavatmal
(Exhibit-47). On the basis of the said complaint, he registered the offence.
PSI- Udaisingh (PW-9) visited the place of incident and conducted the spot
panchanama (Exhibit-60). He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He
arrested the accused persons. After completion of the investigation, he
submitted the chargesheet in the Court of learned C.J.M., Yavatmal. The
case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge
framed the charge and on analysis of the evidence and after hearing both
the sides, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid.
Hence, this appeal.
4] I have heard Mr. A.S. Ambatkar, Counsel h/f Mr. P.R. Agrawal,
the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned APP
for the respondent/State. I have carefully gone through the record and
proceedings of the case.
3 Judg 270917 apeal 105.03.odt
5] Mr. A.S. Ambatkar, Counsel h/f Mr. P.R. Agrawal, the learned
Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge
has not considered the testimony of the witnesses in right perspective and
has convicted the accused erroneously.
6] Mr. S.B. Bissa, the learned APP, contended that the learned
trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused after considering the entire
evidence on record.
7] In order to verify the rival contentions of both the sides, it would
be advantageous to go through the evidence led by the prosecution. The
prosecution has examined PW-1-Sevalal, PW-2-Paya and PW-3-Suman.
Their testimony corroborates with each other. PW-1-Sevalal deposed that
on 26-01-2000 at about 7.00 pm, he along with his brother Paya (PW-2)
was sitting on the cot in the courtyard of his house. Suddenly, Parvati and
one Vijay caught hold of him. Thereafter, Gajanan gave a blow of Gupti on
his stomach. Baliram (appellant) started beating him. PW-1-Sevalal
became unconscious and fell down on the ground. Thereafter, his wife took
him in a jeep to Main Hospital, Yavatmal. He was admitted in the said
hospital. His statement was recorded by the Police. The testimony of PW-1
is in consonance with his complaint (Exhibit-47). PW-1-Sevalal categorically
stated that accd. Baliram (appellant) had obtained the loan of Rs. 300/- from
him at the time of marriage of his daughter. 2/3 days prior to the incident,
PW-1-Sevalal had gone to his house for demanding the said amount.
However, he did not repay the said amount. It appears that due to the said
dispute with regard to the demand of amount of Rs. 300/-, the accused
persons had assaulted PW-1. His testimony corroborates with the testimony
of PW-2-Paya.
8] The testimony of PW-2-Paya shows, that on the date of
incident at about 7.00 pm, he along with PW-1-Sevalal was sitting on the
cot in the courtyard. Gajanan, Baliram (appellant), Parvati and one Vijay
4 Judg 270917 apeal 105.03.odt
started abusing them. PW-1-Sevalal demanded the amount of Rs. 300/-
from Baliram (appellant). However, he did not repay the same and, on that
count, accused persons were abusing to PW-1-Sevalal. Parvati, Baliram
(appellant), Gajanan and Vijay entered in the courtyard. PW-2 further
deposed that Parvati and Vijay caught hold of him and PW-1-Sevalal.
Gajanan assaulted PW-1 by means of Gupti on his stomach. While he
intervened, Gajanan gave a blow of Gupti on his chest, left forearm and
lower portion of stomach. PW-2 categorically stated that Baliram (appellant)
assaulted him by means of fist and kick blows.
9] The testimony of PW-3-Suman reveals that on hearing the
quarrel, she came out of the house and saw that Gajanan was holding knife
in his hand. Parvati and Vijay caught hold of PW-1-Sevalal. PW-3 stated
that Baliram (appellant) assaulted on PW-1-Sevalal and PW-2- Paya by
means of fist and kick blows. PW-3 further stated that Baliram (appellant)
had taken a loan of Rs.300/- from her husband (PW-1) and her husband
demanded the said amount. Thus, the testimony of PW-1-Sevalal, PW-2-
Paya and PW-3-Suman corroborates with each other on the aspect of that
Baliram (appellant) assaulted by means of fist and kick blows to PW-1 as
well as PW-2. There are no material discrepancies in the testimony of these
witnesses, so far as the alleged incident is concerned. Thus, the testimony
of these witnesses has not been shattered in their cross examination. So far
as the role of Baliram (appellant) is concerned, there was no reason for
PW-1-Sevalal, PW-2-Paya and PW-3-Suman to falsely implicate Baliram
(appellant) in the present case.
10] In view thereof, it is held, that the prosecution has established
that Baliram (appellant) has assaulted on PW-1-Sevalal and PW-2-Paya on
26-01-2000 at about 7.00 pm., by giving kicks & fist blows.
11] The version of PW-1 is not shaken in the cross examination.
So far as the role of accd. Baliram (appellant) is concerned, the testimony of
the witnesses corroborates with each other. It is therefore held that the
5 Judg 270917 apeal 105.03.odt
prosecution has proved the presence of accd. Baliram (appellant) at the
place of incident and that the accused had intention to cause injury to the
complainant & accordingly he assaulted the complainant as well as his
brother who intervened. The learned trial Judge has rightly convicted
Baliram (appellant) under Section 324 of the IPC.
12] The Ld. Counsel for the appellant contended that the accused
had no antecedents & considering his age, the sentence be reduced to the
sentence which the accused had already undergone. He further stated that
the appellant was in jail for a period of 7 months i.e. from 02-02-2000 to
12-09-2000. Considering, the age of the accused and considering that
accused had no antecedents & also taking into consideration the role of the
accused, it would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence of the accused is
reduced to the period undergone by him. In view of the facts and
circumstances, the following order is passed :-
O r d e r
(a) Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2003 is partly
allowed.
(b) The Judgment and order passed by the learned
Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in
Sessions Trial No.105 of 2000 on 17-01-2003,
whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment
for six months is modified and stands reduced
from three years to the period undergone by the
accused. The order with regard to the payment of
fine amount is maintained.
6 Judg 270917 apeal 105.03.odt
(c) Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by
trial Court after the appeal period is over.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
