Mangala Pradip Patil And Anr vs The State Of Mah
2021 Latest Caselaw 17542 Bom

                                        {1}                 CRI. RA 235 OF 2011


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.235 OF 2011

 1.       Mangala w/o Pradip Patil
          Age: 30 years, Occu.: Service,
          R/o. Vithai Nagar, N-2,
          CIDCO, Aurangabad.

 2.       Pradip s/o Popatrao Patil
          Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,
          R/o. Vithai Nagar, N-2,
          CIDCO, Aurangabad.                                ..Applicants

                                      VERSUS

 .        The State of Maharashtra                          ..Respondent

                                    ...
            Advocate for Applicants : Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar
                 APP for Respondent : Shri S.D.Ghayal
                                   ...
                                 CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.

                                       DATE:       16th December, 2021

 ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. This revision is preferred by the applicants against the

Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-4, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2010 dated 3 rd

September, 2011, whereby the Judgment and order passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (10th Court),

Aurangabad in RCC No.1284 of 2006 dated 22nd October, 2010

has been modifed. The learned Magistrate had awarded simple

imprisonment of one year and fne of Rs.1,000/- each for the

{2} CRI. RA 235 OF 2011

offence punishable under Sections 3533, 332, 5306(II) read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional

Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and set aside the

conviction under Sections 3533, 332, 5306 (II) read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the applicants under

Sections 3532, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge released the applicants on

executing bond of good behaviour of Rs.10,000/- for a period of

one year in terms of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders

Act, 19538.

2. Facts in brief are that the Informant - Shri Balaji Dharmaji

Bodawar was working as Senior Clerk in the Industrial Training

Institute (ITI), Gevrai, Dist.Beed and was sent on deputation to

ITI, Bhadkal Gate, Aurangabad since 9th August, 2006. On 19th

August, 2006 at about 01:30 p.m., when the informant Balaji

alongwith his friend Sunil Choudhari was taking tea in the

canteen, a Peon by the name of Kalim mentioned to him that the

Deputy Director Shri Jaiswal had called him in the cabin. When

he went in the cabin of Shri Jaiswal, he saw applicants alongwith

4 to 53 unknown persons. At that time, applicants said to the

informant as to when informant was transferred to Gevrai and

why he had come to Aurangabad. They threatened to kill him.

{3} CRI. RA 235 OF 2011

Thereafter, some of the accused with the help of 4 to 53 boys

blackened the face and shirt of the informant. Thereafter,

informant went into another room and closed himself in the room

till the applicants left the ofce. Thereafter, the informant

lodged the report in City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad.

3. Investigation was carried out. After completion of the

investigation, charge-sheet came to be fled. Charge was framed

and read over to the applicants. They pleaded not guilty to it

and claimed to be tried. Their defence under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure and in cross-examination is that

applicant No.1 - Mangala Pradip Patil had fled a complaint

against the informant on account of which informant was

transferred to Gevrai. This false FIR has been fled to take

revenge on applicant No.1.

4. I have heard Shri N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for the

applicants.

53. Shri Ghanekar, learned counsel submits that both the

learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court misread the

evidence. The admissions given by the witnesses have not been

considered by the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate

{4} CRI. RA 235 OF 2011

Court as well. Both the Courts below did not appreciate the fact

that applicant No.1 - Mangala Pradip Patil had fled a complaint

against the informant on account of which informant was

transferred from Aurangabad to Gevrai. This FIR has been fled

just to settle score with applicant No.1. Therefore, conviction

needs to be set aside and applicants need to be acquitted of all

the offences. Only eye witness is Shri Premkumar Jaiswal.

Despite being a public place, prosecution could not collect

evidence of any independent witness.

6. Shri S.D.Ghayal, learned APP for the respondent-State

supported the Judgments of the Courts below.

7. On perusal of the Judgments of the learned Appellate Court

and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, it is seen that both the

Courts have correctly appreciated the evidence tendered.

Informant was sitting in the cabin of Shri Jaiswal (PW-3). The

testimony of the informant is cogent. Nothing could be extracted

from his testimony so as to discredit it. Similarly, testimony of

Shri Jaiswal (PW-3) is also confdence inspiring. Nothing is

brought on record to show that Shri Jaiswal (PW-3) had any axe

to grind against the applicants. He had no reason to depose

falsely against the applicants. His testimony is creditworthy. In

{5} CRI. RA 235 OF 2011

this view of the matter, I do not fnd any infrmity in the

appreciation of the evidence by the learned Appellate Court and

the learned trial Court. Appeal is, therefore, devoid of any

substance. Hence, it is dismissed.

( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE SPT