Bombay High Court
Sachin @ Shashikant Golait vs State Of Mah.Thr.Pso Nagpur on 16 March, 2018
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.517 OF 2004
Sachin @ Shashikant Golait,
Aged 29 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o Kelwad, Tahsil Saoner,
P.S. Kelwad, Nagpur. ..... Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
The State of Maharashtra, through
the Police Station Officer,
Police Station Kelwad, Nagpur. ..... Respondent.
==========================================================================
Shri Yogesh Nayyar, Counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Amit Madiwale, Addl.P.P. for the State.
==========================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : MARCH 16, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging
judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 3rd Ad hoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dated 30.7.2004 in Sessions Trial
.....2/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
No.70/2001, by which the appellant is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and,
in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of one month.
2. The appellant was charged by learned Judge of the Court
below in Sessions Trial No.70/2001 for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 326, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. By the impugned judgment, learned Judge of the Court
below acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections
307, 326, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he is convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Heard learned counsel Shri Yogesh Nayyar for the appellant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Amit Madiwale for the
respondent/State. Also, perused entire record and proceedings of the
.....3/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
Court below.
5. A short question that has to be answered, as to whether the
conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is justified and
what shall be quantum of punishment. This is so, because though
originally the appellant was charged for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 326, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, after his acquittal,
the State did not prefer any appeal before this Court.
6. First Information Report (FIR) is lodged by Shankar
Gulabrao Kshirsagar (PW1), injured, in respect of injury which he
suffered and also in respect of injury of his brother Anandrao Gulabrao
Kshirsagar (PW2), at the hands of the appellant. The oral report of
Shankar Kshirsagar, is at Exhibit 12.
7. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was
residing as tenant in house owned by PW2 Anandrao Kshirsagar. There
was a demand from the landlord and his brother Shankar Kshirsagar for
.....4/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
vacating the said premises and on the day of incident, i.e. on 15.8.2000,
the appellant came in front of the house of the injured and started giving
abuses. Anandrao Kshirsagar, also came from his 'Pan-Shop' and the
appellant assaulted on both the brothers.
8. PW8 is Dr. Vidya Chaburao Bharade. This prosecution
witness was Medical Officer at Patansawangi Primary Health Centre.
Injured Shankar and Anandrao were examined by this witness.
Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) Report of Shankar is at
Exhibit 38. The Doctor found, "one incised wound of size 4" x 3" cms. deep
in right temporal region."
MLC Report of Anandrao is at Exhibit 41. The Doctor
found, "a incised wound of size 2/1 inches in right infrascapular region
and right knee joint."
9. PW8 Dr. Vidya Bharade, also gave opinion that the injuries
found on the person of both the injured is possible by weapon that was
.....5/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
sent to her for examination.
10. From evidences of PW1 Shankar Kshirsagar and PW2
Anandrao Kshirsagar, it is clear that initially the appellant was having
altercation and in that he wiped out knife from his pocket and made
assault on him and when Anandrao tried to intervene, he was also
assaulted. Evidences of PW1 Shankar and PW2 Anandrao corroborate
each other in respect of the part played by the appellant. Their
evidences found to be intact insofar as the attack is concerned.
11. Further, Chindu Laxman Saoji, independent witness (PW5),
though declared hostile, has in fact supported the prosecution to the
extent that there was a quarrel in between the appellant and he, it
appears, has denied the fact that the injured suffered injuries not by
knife.
12. According to the defence, in a scuffle, Shankar fell on an
iron bucket and has suffered injury. The said defence has no basis,
.....6/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
especially when Chemical Analyzer's Report, Exhibit 27, specifically
shows that there were blood stains on the clothes of the appellant and
also on the knife.
13. The knife is recovered on memorandum. Though panchas
Rajesh Babanrao Raut (PW3) and Manohar Bapurao Dhote (PW4) have
turned hostile, the said is proved by the Investigating Officer.
14. In view of the consistent evidences of the prosecution
witnesses, there is no doubt in my mind that the appellant has caused
injuries on PW1 Shankar and PW2 Anandrao.
15. In my view, learned Judge of the Court below has rightly
acquitted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 307,
326, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of nature of the medical
evidence, i.e. available on record, no fault can be attributed for
acquitting the appellant of those charges.
16. Similarly, since the prosecution has proved the fact that the
.....7/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
appellant, with a dangerous weapon like knife, has caused injuries to
Shankar (PW1) and Anandrao (PW2), his conviction under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code is justified.
17. The next question is of sentence.
18. On 12.2.2018, this Court called report from the District
Probation Officer, Nagpur. Accordingly, the Probation Officer has filed a
report which is taken on record and marked as document "X" for
identification. The report is favourable one.
19. The appellant, during the course of the Trial, was in jail
from 15.8.2000 to 16.9.2000 and from 23.6.2004 to 30.7.2004 i.e. the date of
the judgment of the Trial Court. Thereafter, this Court has released the
appellant on bail on 8.9.2004.
20. The incident in question is of the year 2000. The seventeen
years have passed, from the occurrence of the incident, and during the
said period no untoward incident is reported.
.....8/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
21. In that view of the matter and looking to the fact that at no
point of time the appellant was intending to cause any grievous hurt, as
observed by learned Judge of the Court below, and looking to the fact
that the report of the Probation Officer, Nagpur shows that he is having
3 daughters and they are taking education in Engineering and Science,
some leniency can be shown in favour of the present appellant. That
leads me to pass following order:
ORDER
(a) The criminal appeal is partly allowed.
(b) Though the conviction of the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code is hereby confirmed, judgment and order of conviction
passed by learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur dated 30.7.2004 in Sessions Trial No.70/2001 to the
extent directing the appellant to suffer 3 years rigorous
.....9/-
Judgment
apeal517.04 11
imprisonment is modified.
(c) The appellant is awarded jail sentence which he has
already undergone in jail.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
