Bombay High Court
Raosaheb Ramrao Shinde And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 March, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.745 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.47 of 2021
1. Raosaheb s/o Ramrao Shinde
and two ors. = APPLICANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra = RESPONDENT
-----
Mr.AK Bhosale,Advocate for Applicant/s;
Mr.AV Deshmukh,APP for Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 31st March, 2021.
PER COURT :-
1. Heard learned Advocate and learned APP
appearing for respective parties.
2. By this Criminal Application, the
applicants, pray for suspension of substantive
sentences and releasing them on bail during
pendency and final hearing of the Criminal
Revision.
3. The applicants are the original accused
in Regular Criminal Case No.128/2006, who have been
convicted by learned JMFC, Kannad, vide judgment
and order dated 5th April, 2016. The applicants
have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial
Court, thus, -
a) For the offence under Sections 324,
323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default,
S.I. for one month;
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
order of conviction, the applicants have preferred
an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.85/2016, which
has been partly dismissed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide his judgment and
order dated 12.3.2021, whereby the conviction and
sentences have been modified and convicted and
sentenced thus,-
a) For the offence under Section 323
read with 34, sentenced to suffer S.I.
for three months;
read with 34 of IPC, sentenced to suffer
S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.
500/-, in default, S.I. for one month;
read with 34 of IPC, sentenced to suffer
S.I. for three months; and
read with 34 of IPC, they are sentenced
to suffer S.I. for three months.
. All the substantive sentenced are
ordered to run concurrently.
5. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of
the applicants that the learned Sessions Judge has
erred in appreciating the evidence on one-sided
manner and erroneously convicted the applicants.
The impugned judgment is contrary to the evidence
on record and it is based on inferences and
surmises. There is absolutely no iota of evidence
against the applicants. The applicants have been
falsely implicated in the case. The learned
Sessions Judge grossly erred in convicting the
applicants. The conviction was based on the
evidence of hearsay and interested witnesses and
the learned Judge has ignored the material
contradictions and omissions between versions of
the witnesses. As the applicants and complainant
are close relatives, having civil discord between
them, the instant complaint is nothing but an
outcome of the said enmity. Both the Courts below
failed to consider that there is no medical expert
report as regards super-imposition of teeth caused
by the applicants and no any independent witness
has been examined to that effect. Though there
are no material or ingredients of Sections 504 and
506 of IPC; still, without going through the
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has acted upon
the finding rendered by the trial Court. The
allegation as regards bite injury cannot be
sustained without there being medical report as to
superimposition of teeth and if these injuries are
not corroborated by way of medical evidence, no
offence, under Section 324 of IPC, can be said to
have been made out. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of
the material witness and all these infirmities
have been ignored by the learned Judge. The
applicants are permanent residents of village
Shivrai, Tq. Kannad, district Aurangabad and there
is no possibility of they remain absconding. They
are ready and willing to abide by the terms and
conditions that may be imposed upon them. The
learned Advocate further submits that the revision
involves certain other legal points/issues, which
the applicants intend to agitate and address them
at the time of final hearing and the applicants
have every hope of success in the revision.
Consequently, the applicants pray for enlarging
them on bail by suspending the substantive
sentences awarded against them on such terms and
conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper.
6. Per contra, learned APP vehemently
resisted the application and supported the reasons
assigned by the learned Sessions Judge while
convicting and imposing the sentence against the
applicants. The learned Sessions Judge has properly
scanned and scrutinized the evidence brought on
record and rightly convicted and sentenced the
applicants, which requires no interference at the
hands of this Court. It is, therefore, submitted
that the application lacks merit, deserves to be
dismissed and it be dismissed accordingly.
7. As it appears from the impugned judgment
of the learned Sessions Judge, particularly the
sentences, that have been awarded against the
applicants for the offences, in question, are the
short-term sentences. In view of the decision in
the case of Kiran Kumar Vs. State of M.P. - (2001)
9 SCC 211, benefit will have to be extended to the
applicants when they have demonstrated that the
material and significant points raised by them in
the revision are required to be considered at the
time of final hearing. In this view of the
matter, it can be said that a case is definitely
made out for releasing the applicants on bail by
suspending the substantive sentence during pendency
and final disposal of the revision. Hence,
following order,-
ORDER
i. The Criminal Application stands
allowed.
ii. The substantive sentence imposed
on the applicants by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide
judgment and order dated 12.3.2021 in
Criminal Appeal No.85/2016, is hereby
suspended till hearing and final disposal
of the revision.
iii. The applicants - 1) Raosaheb s/o
Ramrao Shinde; 2) Pandharinath s/o Ramrao
Shinde; and 3) Ankush s/o Raosaheb
Shinde, be released on their executing PR
and SB of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees fifteen
thousand) each.
iv. The revision applicants shall
not indulge in any criminal activity
during pendency of the Criminal Revision.
v. The applicants shall remain
present before the learned Trial Judge
once in six months, till final hearing
and disposal of the appeal, commencing
from the date they tender bail papers
and, thereafter, the Trial Judge to fix
dates for their subsequent appearances.
vi. In case of two consecutive
defaults on the part of the applicants to
remain present before the Trial Court,
the Trial Court to inform this Court
about the same and in that eventuality,
the prosecution would be at liberty to
file an application for cancellation of
the bail granted to the applicants.
vii. Bail before the Sessions Court.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
BDV
