Bombay High Court
Subhash S/O Raghunath Khamankar vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. ... on 15 February, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 41.revn.11.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.11 OF 2020
Subhash s/o Raghunath Khamankar
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 15/02/2022
Heard Mr. De, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Ghodeswar, learned APP for
respondent/State.
2. This revision challenges the judgment of the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrawati dated
04.02.2013, in so far as it convicts the applicant, for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereinafter referred as "the IPC") and its
confirmation by the learned Sessions Court by the
judgment dated 29.11.2019. Though, the sentence
imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, of
one month simple imprisonment is set aside, the fine of
Rs.500/- imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, has been maintained by the learned Sessions
Court.
(2) 41.revn.11.2020
3. Though the learned Trial Court convicted the
applicant for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC also,
the same has been set aside by the learned Sessions Court
and the applicant stands acquitted of the said offence.
4. Mr. De, learned counsel for the applicant
submits, that the entire conviction of the applicant under
Section 323 of IPC, is based upon a misconception that
on 05.02.2006 at about 11.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight,
the applicant had caused hurt to the informant, by
trampling on her neck and screwing her joints. By
inviting my attention, to the injury certificate Exh.43 he
submits, that the same is clearly in variance with the
finding recorded, as it speaks only about a blunt trauma
on the cheek and the elbow joint of the informant, due to
which, the finding that the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC stood established, is misconceived.
5. Mr. Ghodeswar, learned APP for the
respondent/State does not dispute the injury certificate
at Exh.43. He however, opposes the application and
submits that the conviction under Section 323 of IPC
needs to be maintained.
6. The Record and Proceedings has been
received and a perusal of the injury certificate at Exh.43,
indicates, that there was a blunt trauma to the elbow
joint and a blunt trauma to the cheek. Nothing is spoken
about the nature of an injury of whatsoever nature on the
neck, considering which, the presumption, drawn by the
(3) 41.revn.11.2020
learned Magistrate, regarding the establishment of the
offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC as spelt out
in para 43 of its judgment cannot be sustained.
7. The learned Sessions Court though noticed
that the medical evidence was contradictory to the
allegation of the applicant having trampled upon the
neck of the informant and having found that there may
be variances in the age of the injuries, has simply chosen
to place reliance upon the deposition of the complainant,
which was not permissible, in view of the injury
certificate at Exh. 43. This being the position, the
conviction of the applicant under Section 323 of IPC
cannot be sustained.
8. The judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class convicting the applicant for the
offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC as well as
that of the learned Sessions Court, upholding the
conviction are therefore, hereby quashed and set aside.
The bail bonds stand cancelled. The fine amount be
returned back to the applicant. The criminal revision
application is allowed, in the above terms.
JUDGE
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE Sarkate
Signing Date:16.02.2022
15:06
