Bombay High Court
Devidas Mahadeo Sarade vs Chandrakant Kamalnath Janbhare ... on 26 August, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 [email protected]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1191 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2019
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1749 OF 2019
Devidas Mahadeo Sarade .... Applicant
versus
Chandrakant Kamalnath Janbhare & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Shriram S. Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant.
• Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State/Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2022
P.C. :
1. For the reasons mentioned in paragraph No.3, the
Application is allowed and Criminal Appeal No.1749 of 2019 is
restored to its original file.
2. In this Appeal, the Appellant challenged the Judgment
and Order dated 11/10/2019 passed by the Extra Joint
Additional Sessions Judge, Barshi, in Criminal Appeal No.14 of
Nesarikar
2/4 [email protected]
2017. By the impugned Judgment and Order, learned Sessions
Judge interfered with the trial Court's order and set aside the
conviction u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code and instead
convicted the Respondent No.1/accused u/s 323 of the IPC. He
was released on execution of bond of good behaviour of
Rs.10,000/- for a period of one year u/s 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. The sentence of fine was maintained. Out of the
fine Rs.2,000/- was directed to be paid to the victim.
3. Now this Appeal challenges not only the setting aside
of conviction u/s 324 of IPC, but also releasing the Appellant on
probation. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
sentence should be imposed on the Respondent No.1.
4. I have considered these submissions. I have also
perused the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
Karmala, dated 20/04/2017 in RCC No.137 of 2010 as well as
the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate
Court. The date of incident is 31/10/2009, in which it is alleged
3/4 [email protected]
that near a tea stall the Respondent No.1 assaulted the
Appellant with a knife causing injury on the web of left palm
between thumb and forefinger of the size 3 x 2 cm. It was
described as CLW. Both the learned Judges have believed the
incident. The only difference is that the Sessions Court had held
that the injury was not caused by a sharp weapon. For that
purpose he has given reasons in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the
appellate order. It was observed that in the examination-in-chief
the Doctor had deposed that the injury was possible due to
sharp and cutting object. However in the injury certificate there
was no such mention. There was also overwriting on the medical
certificate and the time of assault was mentioned as 9 p.m. on
on 31/10/2009 instead of 08.00 a.m. Learned Judge observed
that the medical evidence was doubtful and the opinion
regarding the sharp weapon was given only during trial. The
injury itself was mentioned as Contused Lacerated Wound and
not as Incised Wound. The knife was recovered at the instance of
the Respondent No.1 after 20 days. There is no further
connecting evidence in the form of C.A. report.
4/4 [email protected]
5. Ultimately the Appellate Court converted the
conviction from section 324 of the IPC to 323 of the IPC and
released the Respondent on probation.
6. I do not see the findings and approach of the learned
Judge as perverse. The offence is not that serious. Considering
the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, I do not feel it
necessary to interfere with these observations. Therefore the
Appeal is dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
