Bombay High Court
Ramrao Trambak Dhangar And Ors vs Savitrabai Sharavan Dhangar And ... on 10 July, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 56- Judgment CRA-491-2004.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.491 OF 2004
1. Ramrao Trambak Dhangar,
Age : 39 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
2. Kailas Trambak Dhangar,
Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
3. Deelip Trambak Dhangar,
Age : 29 Years, Occ. Agriculture
4. Balu Rajdhar Dhangar,
age : 34 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
5. Ratiram Rajdhar Dhangar,
Age : 31 Years, Occ. Agriculture.
All resident of Chikhali Tq. Muktainagar,
Dist. Jalgaon. ..Appellants
(Orig. Accused)
VERSUS
1. Sau. Savitrabai Sharavan Dhangar,
age : 54 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Chikhali, Tal. Muktainagar,
2. The State of Maharashtra,
(Through Govt. Pleader High
Court Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondents
(Res.No.1 Orig. complainant)
...
Advocate for Applicants : Apparao Yenegure
( Appointed Through Leagl Aid)
APP for Respondent No.2: Mr. Y. G. Gujarathi
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Pallavi Gawande h/f Mr. V. B.
Patil
...
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 07:19:01 :::
2 56- Judgment CRA-491-2004.odt
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 10.07.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned
A.P.P. for the respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2/victim.
2. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mutktainagar in R.C.C.
No. 86/1996 decided on 6.6.2000 and confirmed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 28/2000
dated 17.02.2004 the applicants have preferred this revision.
3. The learned Judicial Magistrate held the applicants guilty
for the offences punishable under Section 324, 504, 506 Part-II read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in an appeal the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the applicants of the
offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 part II of the Indian
Penal Code and maintained the conviction under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report. It was not
considered by both Courts. It was an accidental case. The injured was
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 07:19:01 :::
3 56- Judgment CRA-491-2004.odt
under the influence of liquor and he fell down. This material aspect
has also not been considered.
5. The learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel for the
victim/injured would submit that the prosecution has proved the case
beyond a reasonable doubt. The injured and other witnesses
categorically deposed against the applicants. They have been
corroborated by the medical evidence. There was no delay in lodging
the First Information Report as the injured was immediately
hospitalized and time was spent in completing the process of lodging
the First Information Report. Both Courts have correctly accepted the
reasons for so called delay in lodging the report. There was cogent
and reliable evidence to believe the prosecution case. There was no
error on the face of record in the impugned judgment and orders.
Hence, the revision deserves to be dismissed.
6. Perused the impugned judgments and orders. It appears
that the prosecution evidence has been appreciated correctly. The
Courts have correctly believed that the applicants in furtherance of
their common intention have caused the injury to the injured. Since
the injured was immediately taken to hospital and he was under
treatment and then the report was lodged, it cannot be said a delay in
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 07:19:01 :::
4 56- Judgment CRA-491-2004.odt
lodging the First Information Report. The accusations levelled against
the applicants were proved. There were no errors apparent on the face
of record.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ought to have been
granted to the applicants.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the victim/injured
would argue that considering the aggressiveness of the applicants, they
would not be entitled for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that the incident happened
long back in the year 1996. The dispute arose on laying the earth in
front of the house of one Rambhau Kakade and Namdeo Kakade. The
village panchayat Sarpanch tried to resolve the dispute. However, the
applicant no.1 got annoyed and the incident happened. It seems that
there were trifle reasons for the quarrel.
10. The learned A.P.P. has fairly conceded that there were no
antecedents to the discredit of the applicants.
11. Considering the nature of the incident, and reasons therefor the
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2023 07:19:01 :::
5 56- Judgment CRA-491-2004.odt
Court is of the view that this is a fit case to exercise the power under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the following
order.
ORDER
(i) The petition stands partly allowed.
(ii) Both impugned judgments and orders do not warrant
interference. However, it is expedient to extend the benefit
under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958.
(iii) The applicants/accused No.1 Ramrao Trambak Dhangar,
applicant No.2 Kailas Trambak Dhangar, applicant No.3 Deelip
Trambak Dhangar, accused No.4 Balu Rajdhar Dhangar and
No.5 Ratiram Rajdhar Dhangar are convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, instead of sentencing them at
once to any punishment, the applicants/accused be released on
their entering bond with one sureties of Rs. 5000/- each for the
period of six months and to appear and receive the sentence
when called upon during the period of six months and in the
mean time keep the peace and good behaviour.
(iv) The applicant to furnish the bonds as directed above, before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Muktainagar.
6 56- Judgment CRA-491-2004.odt
(v) Record and proceeding be returned to the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Muktainagar.
(vi) Rule made partly absolute.
( S. G. MEHARE )
JUDGE
ysk
