Bombay High Court
Manohar S/O. Laxman Rathod And ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Digras, ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 41Revn.129.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 2022
Manohar Laxman Rathod and ors
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D.M.Dixit, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, APP for respondent/State
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 04/07/2022
The R & P has been received.
In view of the order dated 16.6.2022 the
matter is being heard finally.
2] With the assistance learned counsel for the
applicant Mr. Dixit and learned APP, I have perused the
R & P.
3] In pursuance to what has been recorded in
the order dated 16.6.2022, the evidence of PW-2 Sunil
Shamrao Kavathkar regarding the assault by the accused
persons, is consistent with injuries received by him as per
the medical report at Exh.67, which has been proved by
Dr. Santosh Suratsing Jadhav PW-7 who has examined
the PW-2 on 10.4.2013 at Rural Hospital, Digras, who
opined that all the injuries were simple in nature and
caused by hard and blunt object and so also were fresh
(2) 41Revn.129.22
injuries, having different healing period. Though in his
cross-examination he has admitted that injury no.1 may
be old and injuries 2 to 5 in Exh.67 were possible by fall
on ground with some force, that by itself does not detract
from the nature of injuries suffered by PW-2. The
evidence of PW-3 Laxman Rajaram Kavathkar is in
consonance with the deposition of PW-2 and indicates
that he had taken the PW-2, who was injured, from his
field in the Digras Police Station. The seizure panchnama
of the stick at Exh.41 has been proved by PW-4 Achyut
Rajaram Kavathkar, though suggestions have been given
to him regarding the timing and the seizure not being
effected, he has denied the same. PW-5 Santosh Baban @
Sopanrao Mohite has turned hostile, however, his
evidence is only in relation to reaching of PW-2 to Rathi
Petrol Pump and therefore is not of much consequence.
PW-6 Raju Sitaram Bhagat is the Police Head Constable,
who has prepared the spot panchnama Exh. 42 as well as
the seizure memo Exh.41. Though he states that the
seizure memo was prepared in the Police Station, that by
itself, would not deter from the efficacy of the seizure
panchnama.
4] PW-8 Dr. Amar Mulchand Gadda, has taken
the X-ray of the injury suffered by PW-2 and has
prescribed the medicines and has proved Exh.72
prescription. In the entire evidence which has come on
record, though there are minor discrepancies, indicates
(3) 41Revn.129.22
the assault by the accused persons to the PW-2 and the
evidence has been properly marshaled by the learned
Sessions Court and I do not find any reason to defer from
the judgment rendered. The conviction of the appellant is
therefore maintained.
5] Mr. Dixit, leaned counsel for the appellant at
this stage submits that the appellants may be granted the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, for which he places
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court in Sita Ram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar (Appeal
(Cri.) 1214/2005) on 19/09/2005 and State of
Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand
and ors (Apepal (Cri.) 952-953 of 2004) on 27/08/2004,
as well as judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No.529 of 2002 Nana Shivram Kokare and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 12.2.2018. He
further submits that the appellants are not involved in
any other offence of any nature whatsoever and are
ready to execute a bond for their good behaviour. It is
also submitted that appellant Nos. 1 and 3 have
undergone sentence of 16 days from 4.5.2022 till
20.5.2022, which may be considered for the purpose of
granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
6] The appellant no.1 is aged about 45 years
and the appellant no.3 is aged about 28 years. The
(4) 41Revn.129.22
learned trial Court has already granted the benefit of
probation to the appellant no.2.
7] Considering the age of the appellant no.3
Dilip, which was 23 years and that of Manohar, appellant
no.1, which was 40 years at the time when the incident
had taken place and there are no criminal antecedents to
the discredit of these persons, the quantum of sentence,
the nature of the offence and the backdrop in which it
had happened, I deem it to be an appropriate case to
which the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act 1958 would be applicable, in view of
Gulzar Vrs. State of M.P. AIR 2008 SC 383 and Section
360 (10) of the Cr.P.C.
8] However, before exercising such powers it
would be appropriate to obtain the report of the
Probation Officer concerned, in view of which the
Registry is directed to obtain the report of the Probation
Officer, who has the jurisdiction over the area of Digras
and place it before this Court on 11.7.2022.
9] List the matter on 11.7.2022
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:04.07.2022 18:04
