Bombay High Court
Ajinath Dada Kshirsagar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 CrRn-233,236-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2022
1. Ajinath s/o. Dada Kshirsagar,
Age 42 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Dada s/o. Rambhau Kshirsagar,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agri.,
Both R/o. Bhose, Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar. .. Applicants
(Original Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Raghunath s/o. Dada Kharade,
Age 56 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Bhose, Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar. .. Respondents
Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Applicants;
Mr. K. S. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State;
Mr. Narayan B. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent No.2
...
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2022
1. Dada s/o. Shamrao Kharade,
Age 63 years, Occu. Agri.,
2. Raghunath s/o. Dada Kharade,
Age 35 years, Occu. Agri.,
3. Vivek s/o. Dada Kharade,
Age 37 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Bhose, Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar .. Applicants
(Original Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Mr. Narayan B. Narwade, Advocate for Applicant;
Mr. K. S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent/State
::: Uploaded on - 09/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2023 02:04:33 :::
2 CrRn-233,236-22.odt
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
Reserved on : 14-12-2022
Pronounced on : 09-02-2023
JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard the
learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. The applicants in both the Revision Applications have
impugned the judgments and order of conviction passed in
R.C.C.Nos.203 and 204 of 2016 dated 25.01.2019, by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat, District Ahmednagar, and
confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrigonda,
vide judgments and orders, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 125 and 123 of
2019, dated 03.08.2022.
3. The incident happened on the same date and time. Hence,
taken up for disposal under common Judgment.
4. Instead of contesting the case on merit, the parties are
amicably settled the dispute and prayed for compounding the
offence. On the date of the incident, the offence punishable under
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was non-compoundable.
Therefore, the learned counsels have relied upon the following
cases -
(i) Ramawatar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 966,
3 CrRn-233,236-22.odt
(ii) Ramgopal and Another Versus State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834,
(iii) Rajendra Namdeo Takate and others Versus The
State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.452 of
2001 with Criminal Application No. 4962 of 2015 in
Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2001 of this Court, dated
07.10.2015).
5. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment and order of
this Court passed in Criminal Application No. 763 of 2020 in
Criminal Revision Application No.131 of 2017 of this Court,
(Sarfarajkhan Amirulla Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra and
another), dated 08.09.2021.
6. Considering the facts of this case, the Court is of the view
that the case laws relied on by the learned counsels for the
applicants are distinguishable on facts and governed by the
different provisions of law. Therefore, their prayer for
compounding the offence is unacceptable.
7. Perused the judgments and orders. It reveals that both the
Courts below have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective.
They have discussed the admissible evidence and correctly held
the accused guilty and convicted them accordingly. However, the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied for
unreasonable reason.
4 CrRn-233,236-22.odt
8. This Court has called the reports from the Probation Officer
appointed under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The reports
from the District Probation Officer have been received. It has
made a part of the record. He has recommended to extend the
benefit under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
The conduct and behaviour of the applicants has been reported
not harmful to the society and one another. This was the first
offence registered against them. Therefore, the Court is of the
view the benefits under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958, may be extended.
9. After having gone through the reports of District Probation
Officer. The Court is satisfied that the offenders have fixed place
of abode and regular occupation at the place over which the Court
exercises jurisdiction and having regard to the circumstances of
the cases, nature of the offence and character of the offenders, it
is expedient to release them on good conduct. Hence, in view that
matter, the following order has been passed:-
(I) The impugned Judgment and orders convicting the accused
of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 248(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, in C.R.No.150 and 151 of
2016 registered with Police Station Karjat, District
Ahmednagar, is maintained.
5 CrRn-233,236-22.odt
(II) The conviction of the accused Nos. (1) Ajinath Dada
Kshirsagar and (2) Dada Rambhau Kshirsagar in
R.C.C.No.203 of 2016 and accused Nos. (1) Dada Shamrao
Kharade, (2) Raghunath Dada Kharade and (3) Vivek Dada
Kharade in R.C.C.No.204 of 2016, for the offence punishable
under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, is set aside; however, in stead of sentencing them at
once to any punishment, they may be released on their bond
with sureties of Rs.3000/- each, to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during the period of one year
from the date of execution of their bond and in the mean
time, they shall keep the peace and be of good beheviour for
the period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond
and surety.
(III) The bonds and sureties be furnished before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat.
(IV) In above terms, both Revisions stand disposed of.
(V) R & P be returned to the court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Karjat, District Ahmednagar.
(VI) Rule made absolute in above terms.
( S. G. MEHARE, J. )
rrd
