Ajay Atmaram Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 9844 Bom

                                  1 of 26            14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2000
                                 WITH
                  INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2247 OF 2022

 1. Ajay Atmaram Patil
 2. Atmaram Gangaram Patil
 3. Aniruddha Ram Thakur
 4. Chandrakant Ram Thakur
 5. Kishor Janardhan Patil
 6. Manohar Janardhan Patil
 7. Chandrakant Bhaskar Patil
 8. Harishchandra Rambhau Patil
 9. Rajendra @ Rajesh Bapurao Patil
 10. Sanjay Atmaram Patil
 11. Nandkumar Baburao Patil
 12. Shantaram Damodar Patil
 13. Nitin Gangaram Patil                                       ..Appellants

         Versus

 1. The State of Maharashtra
 2. Shashikant Rambhau Patil
 3. Manjula Mangal Gharat                                       ..Respondents

                                  __________

 Mr. Niteen Pradhan a/w. S.D.Khot a/w. Dhruv Balan for Appellant.

 Smt. J. S. Lohokare, APP for State/Respondent No.1.

 Dr. Prakash K. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
                           __________

                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                               DATE : 27th SEPTEMBER 2022

   Gokhale




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2022                   ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2022 00:47:56 :::
                                2 of 26          14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)


 JUDGMENT :

1. This is an old Appeal in respect of even an older

incident. The incident which is the subject matter of this Appeal

had taken place on 25/05/1994. Learned counsel for the

Appellants and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 tendered affidavits of

Shashikant Rambhau Patil and Manjula Mangal Gharat who were

the injured in the incident stating that they have settled the matter

with the accused and they want to live peacefully henceforth and

they want to settle the matter. They have sought permission of the

Court for compounding of the offences. There were two more

injured i.e. Mangal Ramdas Gharat and Dattatray Raghunath Patil.

They have expired on 29/11/2014 and 17/08/1995 respectively.

Their death certificates are also produced on record.

2. Considering this compromise between the parties and

clear intention of the parties to live peacefully henceforth, I have

taken this matter for hearing. In view of the compromise arrived at

between the injured and the accused, I considered whether at the

appellant stage I can permit compounding of non compoundable

offences by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

3. The appellants were the original accused Nos.1 to 13 in

Sessions Case No.48 of 1995 on the file of 2 nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Raigad. The Appellants have challenged the Judgment and

order dated 09/05/2000 whereby they are convicted and

sentenced as follows:

i) The Appellants were convicted for commission of

offence punishable U/s.148 of I.P.C. and were

sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each and to

pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default to

undergo R.I. for two months each.

ii) All of them were convicted for commission of

offence punishable U/s.324 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and

were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default

to undergo R.I. for two months each.

iii)All of them were convicted for commission of

offence punishable U/s.427 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and

were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year each

4 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default

to undergo R.I. for two months each.

iv) All of them were convicted for commission of

offence punishable U/s.452 r/w. 149 of I.P.C. and

were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three year each

and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default

to undergo R.I. for four months each.

v) All of them were charged for commission of

offence punishable U/s.395 and 506 r/w. 149 of

I.P.C., but they were acquitted of those Charges.

All the substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently. The fine amount of Rs.2000/- was directed to be paid

to the complainant PW-1 Shashikant and Rs.3000/- were directed

to be paid to PW-3 Manjula. All the accused were given set off for

the period they had undergone in custody as under trial prisoners.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellants stated that, during

pendency of the appeal, Accused No.4 i.e. Appellant No.4

Chandrakant Thakur had expired. A copy of death certificate of the

5 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

Appellant No.4 is kept on record of this case. He expired on

20/12/2018. The Appeal against him, therefore, abates.

5. Heard Shri. Niteen Pradhan learned counsel for the

Appellants, Smt. Lohokare, learned APP for State/Respondent

No.1 and Dr. Prakash Deshmukh, learned counsel for the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Since the surviving injured have filed affidavits, I had

directed the Police Inspector (Crime) attached to the Uran police

station, District Raigad to file his affidavit. In paragraph 6 of his

affidavit he has admitted that the Appellant No.4 Chandrakant

Thakur had expired on 20/12/2018. He has also mentioned in

paragraph 9 that the injured witnesses Manjula Gharat, Sharda

Patil and Dnyaneshwar Patil have given their statements on

09/09/2022 and they have supported their affidavits and the stand

taken by them that the matter is settled. That affidavit is also taken

on record, apart from affidavits of these injured witnesses.

Therefore, I examined whether at the Appellate stage

compounding of the offences which are not compoundable

6 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

U/s.320 of Cr.p.c. could be compounded by invoking powers

U/s.482 of Cr.p.c.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellants very fairly pointed

out the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Maya

Sanjay Khandare and another Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 dealing

with this very issue. It was held by the full bench that, if any

compromise is entered into between the convict and the

victim/complainant post-conviction for a non compoundable

offence, such compromise by itself cannot be the reason to set

aside the order of conviction. Such order of conviction would have

to be tested by the Appellate Court/Revisional Court on merits. If

Court finds it necessary to maintain conviction, compromise

entered into would be only a factor to be considered while

imposing appropriate sentence. It would be a mitigating factor to

be taken into consideration while awarding appropriate sentence.

8. Learned counsel also relied on the case of Gian Singh

Versus State of Punjab and another 2 to contend that under Section

482 of Cr.p.c. compromise can be acted upon even at the appellate 1 2021(1) Mh.L.J. 613 2 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303

7 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

stage. However, since this very issue is settled by the Full Bench

Judgment, I am bound by the ratio of Full Bench Judgment.

9. The ratio of Full Bench judgment means that, at the

appellate stage this compromise between the parties cannot be

used to acquit the accused or quash the Judgment and order of

conviction and sentence. In view of the clear ratio of this

Judgment, I have considered the merits of the matter and I have

heard the parties in that behalf. With the assistance of learned

counsel I have perused the entire evidence.

10. The prosecution case is in respect of an incident which

had taken place on 25/05/1994 in village Bokadvira, District

Raigad. The accused and the complainant's group were belonging

to two rival political parties. Because of this political rivalry this

incident had taken place wherein all the 13 appellants-accused

entered the house of Shashikant Patil, Mangal Gharat and others

with weapons like iron rods, sticks and gupti. Some of the

prosecution witnesses and other members of their group were

assaulted with those weapons. Stones were pelted on their houses

8 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

causing damage. C.R.No.55 of 1994 was registered at Uran Police

station. The injured were given medical treatment. Their medical

certificates were obtained, spot panchanama of all the houses was

conducted, statements of the witnesses were recorded, weapons

were recovered at the instance of Appellant No.1 Ajay Patil. They

were sticks and rods. But gupti was not recovered. There were

allegations that the ornaments and sarees were stolen from the

house of Mangal Gharat during the incident. Marriage of his

daughter was to take place within two days from the incident and,

there was allegation of commission of offence punishable U/s.395

of I.P.C.; though all the accused-appellants were acquitted from

that Charge. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet

was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

11. During trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Out

of them, PW-1 Shashikant Patil, PW-3 Manjula Gharat, PW-4

Dnyaneshwar Patil and PW-5 Mangal Gharat were injured eye

witnesses. The panchas for recovery of weapons were PW-6 Sanjay

Patil and PW-7 Hasuram Patil. They had turned hostile. PW-2

Gajanan Patil was a pancha for spot panchanama, PW-8 Sanjay

9 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

Gayakwad was a pancha for house search of accused No.2-

Appellant No.2, PW-9 Dr. Ganesh Narayankar had examined the

witnesses and had produced the medical certificates in respect of

injuries suffered by all the injured. PW-10 Bajarang Kamble, P.S.I.

was the Investigating Officer.

12. PW-1 Shashikant Patil was the first informant. He

himself was an injured. He has deposed that, he was residing at

village Bokadvira with his family members consisting of his

parents, brothers and sister. He has described that his family and

his group belonged to one political party and accused belonged to

the rival political party. Hence, there were two factions in their

village divided on political basis. He has deposed that the incident

occurred on 25/05/1994 at 2.00p.m. He was present in his house.

All the accused/Appellants who are named by him came in their

house. They were armed with weapons like iron bars, sticks and

stones. The Appellant No.1 was having a gupti. After that the

accused No.1 raised shouts instigating other accused to assault him

for having allegiance to the opposite party. The Appellant No.1

then gave a blow with gupti over his low lip. PW-1's sister Sharda

10 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

intervened to save him. The Appellant No.1 then gave a blow with

gupti on Sharda's nose. PW-1 has deposed that, after that all the

accused/Appellants entered their house. They assaulted PW-1, his

parents, brother and sister Sitabai. His parents and brother

Dnyaneshwar received injuries. PW-1 himself was injured in the

attack. All the appellants/accused then pelted stones, hurled

abuses and went away. They went towards the house of Mangal

Gharat and Dattatraya Patil. All the injured then went to Hospital

at Uran. They were medically treated. The police came to his

house and his statement was recorded; which was treated as an

F.I.R. The F.I.R. is produced on record at Exhibit 52. When they

were in the hospital, injured Mangal and Dattatraya also arrived in

the hospital in injured condition. They had received bleeding

injuries. PW-1 then identified the appellants/accused before the

Court.

In the cross-examination, he stated that, he was on a

casual leave on the date of incident. He was working with M.S.E.B.

He denied the suggestion that the accused's party members were

lesser in number in the village. He admitted that, in the year 1991

11 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

one Madhukar Patil was murdered. He was belonging to the rival

political party of PW-1. In that case, members of PW-1's party were

the accused. However, he denied the suggestion that he was close

to the accused in that murder trial. The house of other injured

Dattatrya Patil was beyond about 6 to 7 houses from his house and

Mangal's house was beyond 10 to 12 houses. The incident in his

house occurred within 2 to 3 minutes. He could not tell whether

his clothes were seized during investigation. The F.I.R. produced at

Exhibit 52 substantially corroborates his version. All the

appellants/accused are mentioned in the F.I.R.

13. PW-4 Dnyaneshwar patil was the brother of PW-1. He

has deposed in the similar manner as is deposed by the PW-1. He

has described the incident in the same manner. He has also

attributed gupti to the accused No.1. While leaving, the accused

pelted stones breaking tiles on the roof of their house. His cross-

examination was also on the similar lines as that of PW-1.

14. PW-5 Mangal Gharat was another witness in whose

house the appellants entered illegally and assaulted him. He has

12 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

deposed that, he was residing with his wife, two sons and a

daughter in the same village. On 27/05/1994 his daughter's

marriage was to take place. The incident occurred at 2.15p.m. on

25/05/1994. He named all the appellants/accused as the

assailants who entered his house with iron bars, sticks and stones.

They started abusing him. The Appellant No.1 Ajay then gave a

blow with barchi upon the left eye and little finger of PW-5. The

other accused/appellants caused damages to the photographs,

cupboard, radio, ceiling fan, table fan etc. in the house. They took

away the ornaments viz. Necklace, ear rings, Mangalsutra and

sarees. They caused damage to the bicycle. The ornaments were

purchased just 15 days before the incident because there was

marriage in the family.

In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was

convicted in the murder case of Madhukar. He denied the

suggestion that, being on inimical terms with the Appellant No.2,

he was involved falsely. Though he had deposed in his examination

in chief about the shop from where he had bought the ornaments,

he was pointed out that omission form his police statement and he

13 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

could not assign any reasons for that. He described the barchi

which was seized from the Appellant No.1. According to him, it

was 15 inches in length with blade of 12 inches.

15. PW-3 Manjula Gharat was PW-5 Mangal's wife. She has

also described the incident in her house. According to her, the

appellant No.1 was carrying gupti and others were armed with

iron bars and sticks. The Appellant No.1 assaulted her husband

Mangal on his left eye with gupti. Then damage was caused in the

house. They removed gold ornaments, sarees etc. She had taken

her husband to Uran hospital. After 2 to 3 months the police

collected receipts of the ornaments.

In her cross-examination she admitted that her

husband and son were convicted in the case involving murder of

Madhukar.

16. PW-2 Gajanan Patil was a pancha for spot panchanama

which is at Exhibit 54. The spot panchanama describes the

situation in the house of Shashikant, Moreshwar, Nanuram,

Janardan and Mangal. Those houses did show damage caused

14 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

inside those houses.

His cross-examination does not help the defence. He

has admitted that nothing was seized at the time of spot

panchanama.

17. PW-6 Sanjay Patil and PW-7 Hasuram Patil were

panchas for recovery of weapons at the instance of the Appellant

No.1. However, they turned hostile. According to the prosecution

case, the weapons viz. Four sticks and three rods were recovered at

the instance of Appellant No.1 from the bushes near the railway

line. The discovery memo was produced through the investigating

officer PW-10 at Exhibit 82.

18. PW-6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case, but

recovery panchanama was brought on record through the evidence

of PW-10 P.S.I. Bajarang Kamble. He has deposed about the

investigation carried out by him. After completion of the

investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by him.

He admitted that, till after about 2 months from

lodging of the F.I.R. the receipts were not produced regarding

15 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

purchase of ornaments and sarees.

19. PW-8 Sanjay Gayakwad was a pancha in whose

presence the house of the Appellant No.2 was searched; but

nothing incriminating was seized. Therefore, his evidence is

innocuous. He had also turned hostile.

20. PW-9 Dr. Ganesh Narayankar is an important witness. He

has examined the injured persons in this case. The injured Sharda,

Dnyaneshwar, Mangal, Shashikant, Dattatraya and Sitabai were

examined. Their medical certificates are produced on record at

Exhibit 74 to 79. Those injured had suffered following injuries:

Injured Sharda Rambhau Patil suffered following

injuries:

i) CLW at the base of nose, 1.5" x 1/4" x subcut deep blood oozing, on palpation crept over nazal bone. 'query' regarding fracture of nasal bone. age fresh.

ii) CLW on eye brow right side 1" x 1/4" x subcut deep.

iii)CLW on occipital region, 1cm x sub cut deep.

Age of all the injuries, fresh, Injury Nos. 2 and 3

16 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

simple in nature. Injury Nos.1 to 3 caused by hard and blunt.

Injured Dnyaneshwar Rambhau Patil suffered following injuries:

i) Contusion on supra scapular region 3" x 1/4"

Margin ill defined.

ii) Abrasion contusion on back, below survical spine just right lateral to spine ½" x ½".

iii) Abrasion contusion on lower angle of scapula 1" x 1".

iv)Abrasion on back infra scapular region right ½ cm x ½ cm.

Injured Mangal Ramdas Gharat suffered following injuries:

i) Abrasion contusion on eye-brow right side near base of nose, 1" x ½".

ii) CLW on right Index finger 1.5 cm x superficial of shape.

Injured Shashikant Rambhau Patil suffered following injuries:

i) Abrasion contusion on lower lip 3 cm x 1.5 cm.

ii) CLW on lower lip on mucosal surface. Size 1.5 cm X ½ cm.

iii) Abrasion on right knee, 1.5" X 1.5".

iv) Abrasion on left knee, 25" X 2".

v) Contusion on shoulder, 2" X 2".

Injured Datta Raghunath Patil suffered following injuries:

17 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

i) Contusion on left leg on lateral aspect. 4" X 2.5" simple in nature age within 6 hours.

Injured Sitabai Rambhau Patil suffered following injuries:

i) Abrasion contusion on left forearm on medical aspect, 2" x 1" with minor abrasions ½ c.m. x ½ cm.

21. He has deposed that the injury No.2 listed on

Shashikant's injury certificate was possible by a weapon like gupti.

The injury No.1 suffered by Sharda is also possible by gupti.

In the cross-examination, he deposed that, only Mangal

was admitted to hospital because of his high B.P. He admitted

that, final report regarding injury on Sharda was not received and,

therefore, he was not in a position to depose whether it was a

fracture injury or not. Thus, it can be seen that all the injuries were

simple in nature.

The defence of the appellants was of total denial.

22. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

evidence itself shows that the appellants and the prosecution

18 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

witnesses belonged to two rival parties and, therefore, there was

strong reason to implicate the appellants falsely. The prosecution

witnesses are not telling the truth and, therefore, the appellants

were acquitted from the Charges of commission of offence

punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C. The oral evidence regarding injuries

do not match with the medical evidence and the injuries do not

appear to be caused with sharp weapons. There is no independent

corroboration to the prosecution evidence, though the incident had

taken place in the village in different houses. No other

independent witness from the village is examined to corroborate

the prosecution version. Shri. Pradhan also submitted that, only

PW-1, 4 and 6 were the injured witnesses. PW-3 Manjula was not

the injured and other injured persons were not examined by the

prosecution, therefore, adverse inference should be drawn.

23. On the other hand, learned APP supported the

prosecution case relying on the evidence of injured witnesses.

24. I have considered these submissions. So far as, Charges

for the offence punishable U/s.395 of I.P.C. are concerned, learned

19 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

Judge has rightly acquitted the appellants. It was observed that,

receipts regarding those purchases were produced on 01/03/1995

much belatedly. No such ornaments, sarees or other articles were

recovered at the instance of any of the appellants and, therefore,

since the evidence in that behalf was lacking; benefit was given to

the appellants.

25. Learned Judge, however, believed the prosecution

witnesses in respect of other allegations and then convicted and

sentenced the appellants as mentioned earlier. Analysis of the

evidence of prosecution witnesses PW-1, 3, 4 and 5 shows that the

evidence is brought on record in respect of two houses. PW-1 and

4 have deposed about the incident in the house of Shashikant PW-

1, whereas, PW-3 and 5 have deposed about the incident in their

house. All these witnesses have consistently named the appellants

and have deposed that, all of them were carrying weapons like

iron rods, sticks and stones. There is no inconsistency in the names

and weapons mentioned by them. Though, particular weapon is

not ascribed to a particular accused, their consistent version is

that, all of them had come together carrying those weapons. Only

20 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

Appellant No.1 was having a gupti. PW-5 Mangal has deposed

that, he was having a barchi. The Appellant No.1 caused injury

with a sharp weapon to PW-1 and 5. The medical officer PW-9 has

deposed that, those injuries to PW-1 Shashikant and Sharda were

possible by gupti. Rest of the injuries could have been caused by

hard and blunt weapons like sticks and iron rods. Therefore, the

ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence.

26. The spot panchanama shows there was damage caused

to the articles inside the houses, which also supports the case of

the prosecution that all the accused/appellants had entered into

these houses and had caused damage inviting conviction and

sentence U/s.452 r/w.149 of I.P.C. The injuries suffered by the

witnesses and other persons also proved the offence U/s.324 r/w.

149 of I.P.C. The prosecution evidence falls short of proving that

any grievous injury was caused. There is no evidence that Sharda

had suffered fracture as is mentioned in the evidence of PW-9 Dr.

Narayankar. Therefore, conviction is properly recorded U/s.324 r/

w. 149 of I.P.C.

21 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

27. The evidence shows that, four sticks and three rods were

recovered at the instance of Appellant No.1, however, panchas

have not supported that case, but that would be only corroborative

piece of evidence, if at all. Therefore, decision of this case will

depend on the main evidence of injured eye witnesses and that of

PW-3 Manjula who was a natural an eye witness. She was present

in her house when the incident had taken place. Considering this

discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved

beyond doubt the offence committed by the appellants U/s.148,

Section 324 r/w. 149, Section 427 r/w.149, Section 452 r/w. 149

of I.P.C.

28. The next crucial question is about sentencing the

accused. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the fine

amount is already deposited by the Appellants. Therefore, there is

no reason to set aside that portion of the sentence. There are

certain mitigating factors in this case which are as follows:

i) The incident had taken place on 25/05/1994.

More than 28 years have passed since then. There

22 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

are no allegations that the appellants have caused

any harassment to the injured or their group in

the village during this period.

ii) The surviving injured have given their affidavits

mentioning that the matter was settled and they

had no objection for compounding the offence.

iii)The injuries suffered are minor.

iv) Both the parties are living peacefully in the village

and they want to live peacefully henceforth.

v) The police officer of the Uran police station has

supported the appellants' and injured witnesses'

claim that the parties have settled the issue.

29. Based on the Full Bench Judgment referred to herein

above, these factors can be taken into account for considering the

sentence.

30. The Appellant Nos.1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 were in

custody from 29/05/1994 to 08/06/1994. The Appellant Nos.5, 7

23 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

and 10 were in custody from 30/05/1994 to 08/06/1994 and

appellant No.6 was in custody from 26/05/1994 to 08/06/1994.

The Appellant No.2 was not arrested.

31. Considering these circumstances, in the background of

the case, nature of injuries and the settlement arrived at between

the parties, instead of sentencing these appellants, it would be

sufficient if sentence of all the appellants except Appellant No.2 is

reduced to the period which they have already undergone in

custody. The payment of fine need not be disturbed.

32. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned, Shri. Pradhan

submitted that, as of today he is 76 years of age. There are no

specific allegations against him of causing any particular injury. At

this stage, after so many years, if it is possible, his jail sentence can

be avoided. He relied on Section 4 and S.11 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958. He submitted that, in stead of imposing any

substantive sentence, in the background of the case and in view of

the settlement the Appellant No.2 be released on probation of

good conduct. This power can be exercised by this Court in the

24 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

Appeal as provided U/s.11 of this Act.

33. Learned APP did not oppose these submissions. She

could not point out any factors as to why such approach cannot be

adopted. In fact, there was no objection for adopting such

approach. The police officer has emphasised on the settlement

arrived at between the parties. In view of this, I am inclined to

extend benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act U/s.4 r/w. S.11 of

the said Act to the Appellant No.2. The appeal on behalf of

Appellant No.4 Chandrakant Thakur has abated.

34. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

i) The Appeal is partly allowed.

ii) The Appeal on behalf of the Appellant No.4

stands abated.

iii)The conviction of all the Appellants except the

Appellant No.4 is maintained.

iv) The payment of fine as directed by the trial Court

25 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

in respect of all these offences is also maintained,

except for the Appellant No.2. His sentence for

payment of fine under different heads is set aside.

However, so far as, substantive sentences are

concerned, those sentences are reduced for each

of the appellants except the Appellant No.2 for

the period for which they have already

undergone. They need not undergo any further

imprisonment for the offences in connection with

this case.

v) So far as the Appellant No.2 Atmaram Gangaram

Patil is concerned, his substantive sentence of

imprisonment and that of payment of fine are set

aside. He shall execute a bond of good behaviour

for a period of six months from 1 st November

2022 in accordance with the provision of Section

4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

vi) On his executing such bond he need not undergo

26 of 26 14-APEAL-362-2000 (JUDGMENT)

any substantive sentence and need not pay the

fine amount.

vii) If there is any breach of bond then the Appellant

No.2 shall suffer S.I. for 15 days.

viii) He shall also be entitled to benefit U/s.12 of the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

ix) It is made clear that, payment of fine imposed on

the other appellants is not set aside. Therefore,

PW-1 Shashikant Rambhau Patil and PW-3 Manjula

Mangal Gharat are entitled to the compensation as

mentioned in clause (7) of the operative part of the

trial Court's Judgment and order.

x) With these directions, the Appeal is disposed of.

xi) With disposal of the main Appeal, nothing

survives in the Interim Application No.2247 of

2022 and it is also disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)