Bombay High Court
Ritesh Uttamrao Warthi vs The State Of Maharashtra P.S.O Sindhi ... on 30 January, 2024
Author: M. W. Chandwani
Bench: M. W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:1266
1 33-revn-135-23j.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATON NO. 135 OF 2023
Ritesh Uttamrao Warthi,
Age about 24 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Khadki, Tah.Seloo, Dist. Wardha. . . . APPELLANT
// V E R S U S //
State of Maharashtra through
P. S.O. Sindhi Railway, Seloo, Wardha
Tah. & Dist. Wardha. . . . RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Aalap Palshikar, APP for non-applicant/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 30.01.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. W. CHANDWANI):-
Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
4. The application challenges the judgment and order dated
07.10.2017 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 98/2015, by which
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Seloo convicted the
2 33-revn-135-23j.odt
applicant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- and the
application also challenges the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Wardha in Criminal Appeal
No. 57/2017, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant.
5. The facts, which leads to filing of this revision application
can be summarized as under:-
That informant- Afaz Ali Niyaz Ali lodged a report with
Police Station Sindhi Railway alleging that when he along with his
friend- Vilas were going to their house, the accused stood in front of
them on their way. When the informant asked the applicant to allow
them to go, the applicant quarreled and abused them. The applicant
unleashed knife blow on left eye-brow of the informant. On complaint
to Police Station, Sindhi Railway, Seloo, an offence punishable under
Section 324 of the IPC came to be registered vide Crime No. 52/2015.
6. The learned JMFC, Seloo in the trial, after appreciating the
evidence on record, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of the IPC and by the impugned order and passed
the aforesaid sentence. Feeling aggrieved with the order of conviction,
3 33-revn-135-23j.odt
the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned ASJ, Wardha vide
Criminal Appeal No. 57/2017. The learned ASJ, Wardha, after
re-appreciating the evidence on record, confirmed the impugned order
passed by the learned JMFC, Seloo and dismissed the appeal. The
orders impugned are under challenge in this revision application.
7. Heard Shri Mahesh Rai, learned counsel of the applicant.
He vehemently submitted that the Trial Court as well the Appellate
Court committed illegality by recording the order of conviction and
dismissing the appeal, respectively. The omissions and contradictions
brought on record were not considered by the Trial Court as well the
Appellate Court. There was no intention on the part of the applicant to
assault the informant by means of knife. The seizure of the knife has
not been proved and the injury caused to the informant was due to fall
during the scuffle between the informant and the applicant. Also,
there was dark due to cut down of electricity supply therefore,
witnessing of incident is doubtful. Hence, according to him, the Trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court have wrongly held the applicant
guilty of the offence.
8. Per contra, the learned APP for the non-applicant/State
submits that in revision, the re-appreciation of evidence is not
permissible and the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were
4 33-revn-135-23j.odt
right in holding the applicant guilty. There are material on record
which goes to connect the applicant with the crime and therefore,
according to him, no case is made out for interference in the order of
conviction. Hence, sought rejection of the application.
9. It is settled position that in revisional jurisdiction, re-
appreciation of evidence is not permissible. It the Court finds that
incorrect or illegal findings are recorded by the Court below or there
are findings against judicial propriety, the same can be corrected while
exercising revisional jurisdiction. Perusal of the impugned order of the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court do not prima facie show that
any illegality has been done. Evidence on record shows that it is the
applicant, who assaulted the informant/victim by means of knife and
the injury on the person of the informant itself speaks in volumes.
Nothing is brought on record in cross-examination, which show that
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed any
gross error or illegality in appreciating the evidence. In view of
concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court,
the case in hand does not require any interference at the hand of this
Court to the findings of both the Courts holding the applicant guilty.
5 33-revn-135-23j.odt
10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that this is the first offence of the applicant and at that time
he was 24 years old. According to him, considering the nature of
offence, benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, "the
Act of 1958") can be extended to the applicant. According to him, the
applicant can be asked to execute a bond for a year in view of Section
4 of the Act of 1958.
11. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the
application, a report from Probation Officer has been called for. In the
said report it has been mentioned that the assault was followed by
altercation between the applicant and the informant. The applicant is
repenting for his alleged act. The Probation Officer has recommended
release of the applicant on probation by executing one year bond.
12. The learned APP for non-applicant/State submitted that in
view of the facts of the case and the age of the applicant, the applicant
may be released on probation under the Act of 1958.
13. The offence under Section 324 of the IPC is not punishable
for life or death penalty. The applicant has not been previously
convicted. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the
nature of offence as well as considering the report submitted by the
6 33-revn-135-23j.odt
Probation Officer, I find no difficulty to extend the benefit of Section 4
of the Act of 1958 to the applicant. Hence, the following order:-
i) The application is partly allowed.
ii) Instead of sentencing the applicant at once with the
punishment imposed by the Trial Court, the applicant shall be released
on his entering into bond of ₹25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand)25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand)
with one solvent surety in the like amount for one year before the Trial
Court to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during
such period, as the Trial Court may direct, and in the meantime to
keep the peace and be of good behavior.
iii) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court for
executing the bond within two weeks.
iv) The concerned Court be informed accordingly.
The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
RR Jaiswal
Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/02/2024 17:43:04
