Bombay High Court
Lalasaheb Laxman Bondar And Ors vs The State Of Mah on 17 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:11050
CriAppeal-156-2006
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.156 OF 2006
1. Lalasaheb S/o Laxman Bondar,
Age: 28 years, Occu. Agri. & Service,
R/o. Deo Dhanora,
Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Sarang Babruwan Bondar,
Age: 24 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. As above.
3. Indrajit Govardhan Bondar,
Age: 33 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. As above.
4. Pandurang Bajirao Bondar,
Age: 24 years, Occu.: Education,
R/o. As above. ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Station,
Shiradhon Taluka Kallam,
District Osmanabad. ... Respondent
......
Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Appellant
Ms. Vaishali S. Chaudhari, APP for Respondent - State
Mr. M.V. Ghatge, Advocate to assist APP
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 27.03.2025
Pronounced on : 17.04.2025
CriAppeal-156-2006
-2-
JUDGMENT :
1. Convicts for offence under Sections 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC in
Sessions Case No. 36/2003, hereby question the legality and
maintainability of the judgment dated 13.02.2006 passed by learned
2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.
FACTS GIVING ARISE TO TRIAL
2. PW2 Subhash visited shop of Mahadev Shivappa for purchase
of betel nut. PW2 also asked appellant Lalasaheb whether he too
wanted betel nut. After denying, it is alleged that, Lalasaheb said that
he is not a beggar to accept whatever is offered by others. Such reply
triggered heated exchange of words between both of them.
Consequently, Lalasaheb took out his footwear and flung it in the
direction of informant. By indulgence of others, matter was sorted out
and settled. In the evening, after dinner, when informant went to
Khandoba temple to watch play, Lala, Sarang, Indrajit and Pandurang
also came to watch the play. Lala informed previous incident to his
associates and thereafter, it is alleged that, they all four gave kicks
and fist blows to informant. Again this matter was separated by
Nilkant and Bhalchandra. When informant was returning home after
watching the play, it is alleged that appellants assaulted him. Sarang
CriAppeal-156-2006
dealt knife blow, but the blow landed on the abdomen of Nilkant
PW1, who had come to separate. Appellant Lala dealt knife blow on
informant. Vikram Watane and Bhalchandra took the injured to the
hospital. On the statement of PW1 Nilkant, crime was registered,
which was investigated by PW10 and he chargesheeted appellants.
3. Learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad
conducted the trial, during which prosecution adduced evidence of 10
witnesses and relied on documentary evidence like FIR, panchanama,
injury certificates etc. After appreciating the evidence adduced by
prosecution, learned trial Judge convicted appellants for offence
under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC, however acquitted all of them of
the charge under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC.
Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, appellants have
assailed the same, raising various grounds in the appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of the appellants :
4. Criticizing the prosecution evidence and setting up a case of
false implication, learned counsel submitted that witnesses are
inconsistent, not supporting each other and answers given by them in
CriAppeal-156-2006
cross do not make their evidence credible. He submitted that, medical
evidence also does not cogently support alleged occurrence and
assault. He pointed out that, there was no intention to inflict injury on
PW1. That, while jostling, accidental injury was suffered. Learned
counsel further pointed out that necessary ingredients for attracting
Section 326 IPC are not available as injuries are not on vital part.
That, learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence as
well as legal position. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that,
occurrence is of 2002. Almost two decades have lapsed since
conviction being recorded, and therefore, in the alternative, learned
counsel seeks sentence for a period already undergone.
On behalf of Respondent State as well as Informant :
5. Learned APP, assisted by learned counsel representing original
informant, strongly opposed on the ground that, there is convincing,
cogent and reliable evidence of not only injured Subhash, but also
PW1 informant who had intervened, but was also assaulted by knife.
Therefore, there is consistent injured eye witness account finding
support from two medical experts. There was use of article like knife.
The same is recovered. Resultantly, according to learned APP,
essential ingredients for attracting both Sections, i.e. 324 and 326 of
CriAppeal-156-2006
IPC being available, no fault can be found in the conclusion reached
by learned trial Judge. For want of merits, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
EVIDENCE
6. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as ten
witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of their
evidence is as under :
PW1 Nilkant Vasantrao Mane is the informant as well as injured. He
deposed at Exhibit 21 as under:
"1. I am working as a Head master at Diphal. However, I am
resident of Deo-Dhanora. I used to do up and down for service.
2. On 20.10.2002, at about 11.00 p.m. I heard some quarrel. I
came down on the road. Lalasaheb Bondar, Sarang Bondar,
Pandurang Bondar and Indrajit Bondar were jostling with Subhash.
They were giving kicks and fist blows. I myself, police Patil Somnath
Bondar and Bhalchandra Watane separated the quarrel.
3. Thereafter, Subhash Watane started towards his house. Again
these all four accused rushed towards him. At that time, Sarang was
assaulting Subhash with knife. I hold it. At that time the knife struck
to my belly. At that time. Balasaheb Bondar dealt knife blow on right
belly of Subhash .Thereafter, he fell down and sustained injury. Then
we took him to his house. As there was profuse bleeding to Subhash
therefore he was taken to civil hospital Osmanabad. The civil
hospital, Osmanabad referred Subhash to Solapur for further
treatment I had also gone alongwith Subhash to Solapur. Subhash
was admitted in hospital at Solapur. I was also treated. Police had
come in the hospital and recorded my statement as per my say. The
complaint now shown to me is same. It bears my signature. Its
contents are true and correct. It is at exh.22. I can identify the knife
CriAppeal-156-2006
if shown to me. Both the knifes before the court are the same.
Accused before the court are the same. The incident had taken place
in front of my house. I have shown the spot to police."
PW2 Subhash Watane, injured. He deposed at Exhibit 23 as under:
" 1. On 20.10.2002. I was at village Deodhanora. At about 3.00
p.m. I had gone to shop of Mahadeo Shivappa at that time Lalasaheb
Bondar, Ram Maruti Gaikwad, Dnyanoba Narayan Hingane, were
there. I asked Lalasaheb Bondar whether he intent to take betel nut.
He replied in negative and told that he is not beggar and did not eat
of others. At that time, there was exchange of words took place in
between me and Lalasaheb Bondar. At that time, Lalasaheb thrown
chappal at me. Thereafter Lalasaheb lifted the betel nut cutter on me.
Thereafter Ram Gaikwad, Mahadeo Shivappa Kale and Dnyanoba
have separated the quarrel.
2. Thereafter, I go for the Devi Yatra at Akurga on motor cycle
and returned at about 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, I took meal and went to
Khandoba temple to attend the Jai Malhar play. At that time, Lala
Bondar, Sarang Bondar, Pandurang Bondar and Indrajit Bondar had
come to the play. At that time, Lala Bondar told rest of three Bondar
that in the noon hours he has abused me. Therefore they started
giving kicks and fist blows to me. Thereafter, Nilkant Mane,
Bhalchandra Watane, Vyankat Watane came out of play and
separated the quarrel. Thereafter, I started towards my house. At that
time, Limbraj Bondar, Lalasaheb Bondar and other two i.e. all the
four accused followed me to assault. At that time, Sarang was to
dealt knife blow on me, however, Nilkant hold him, they jostled with
each other. As such knife struck to the belly of Nilkant. Then
Lalasaheb came with knife and dealt knife blow on my right side
belly. Therefore I shouted 'Melore Mala Wachava'. Thereafter, Vikram
Watane and Bhalchandra Watane took me to my house. The incident
took place at about 11.30 p.m. The accused before the court are the
same. Thereafter, I was taken to civil hospital, Osmanabad, then to
hospital to Solapur. I gained consciousness on second day. I can
identify the knife if shown to me, both the knifes before the court are
the same. Police attached my blood stained clothes under panchnama
at civil hospital Solapur. The articles no. 5, 6, 7 before the court are
the same. At the time of incident, accused Lalasaheb was wearing
white banian and white pant. I can identify the same if shown to me.
They are at article no. 2 and 3, before the court."
CriAppeal-156-2006
PW3 Venkat Watane, was an eyewitness. He deposed at Exhibit 24
as under:
"1. I know Subhash and Nilkant Mane, as well as all the accused
before the court. On 20.10.2002 at about 10.00 p.m. I had gone to
Khandoba temple to see the play. Bhalchandra Watane was with me.
At about 11.30 p.m. we heard the shout on road side, when we were
seeing the play. Accordingly I myself and Bhalchandra came out of
play. At that time, all the accused present before the court were
abusing and giving kicks and fist blows to Subhash. Therefore we
intervened the quarrel. Thereafter Subhash, proceeded towards his
house. Thereafter, Sarang rushed towards Subhash with knife.
Nilkant hold the Sarang. Both fell down. The knife of Sarang struck
to belly of Nilkant. Thereafter, Lalasaheb came with knife and dealt
the same on right side belly of Subhash. Subhash fell down and he
sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter we took Subhash to his house.
Subhash shouted like "Melore Mala Wachava". Thereafter, Subhash
fell down in front of his house.
2. Thereafter, I brought the jeep of Babasaheb Waghmare. I
myself, Nilkant Mane, Bhalchandra Watane Vishnu Watane took to
civil hospital, Osmanabad. Then doctor of said hospital referred
Subhash to civil hospital, Solapur. The accused before the court are
same. I can identify the knife if shown to me. Both the knife now
shown to me at article no. 1 and 4 before the court are the same. "
PW4 Ram Gaikwad, who has not supported the prosecution case.
PW5 Manik Adsul acted as pancha to seizure of clothes of injured
vide Exhibit 28.
PW6 Nagraj Patil, pancha to memorandum of disclosure and
recovery panchanama, has not supported prosecution.
CriAppeal-156-2006
PW7 Dinaji Deshmukh, another pancha who also did not support the
prosecution.
PW8 Dr. Shashikant Mukteshwar was the Medical Superintendent,
who examined Subhash and issued injury certificate Exhibit 34.
PW9 Dr. Madhukar Ghunalkar, was C.M.O., who examined
informant Nilkant, noticed abrasion and gave its measurement.
He identified injury certificate issued by him to be at Exhibit
36.
PW10 PSI Revansidh Bansode was the Investigating Officer.
ANALYSIS
7. Here, though 10 witnesses are examined by prosecution, crucial
evidence is of PW1, PW2 and PW3, along with medical evidence of
PW8 and PW9.
8. Re-appreciated and reanalyzed the evidence of PW1 and PW2,
who are injured. PW1 Nilkant claims that, on hearing quarrel, he
came on the road and saw appellant Lalasaheb, Sarang, Pandurang
and Indrajit jostling with Subhash. He claims to have seen above
persons giving kicks and fist blows. This witness further claims that he
CriAppeal-156-2006
himself, along with police patil Somnath and Bhalchandra, indulged
to separate the quarrel. He further claims that while Subhash was
proceeding towards his house, he again saw all above persons rushing
over Subhash. He claims that appellant Sarang was about to assault
Subhash with knife and therefore, this witness intervened and he
claims that, the blow struck on his belly. He claims that accused
Balasaheb dealt blow on the right belly of Subhash and they both
started bleeding and were taken to the hospital. There, he gave
statement which he identified to be at Exhibit 22.
While under cross, apart from denial of the suggestion, this
witness was asked how long the incident lasted for, to which this
witness answered that it lasted for 15 minutes. This itself shows that
occurrence is not seriously disputed, and rather it is admitted.
9. PW2 Subhash also narrated that when he went to shop to
purchase betel nuts, appellants were present there. He claims to have
asked Lala whether he wanted betel nuts, and after Lala rejecting it
saying that he is not a beggar, there was heated exchange of words
between him and Lala, who flung footwear towards him. Ram
Gaikwad, Mahadev and Dnyanoba separated the quarrel. He further
deposed that, in the night after taking dinner, when he was returning
CriAppeal-156-2006
after watching play in the temple, Lala, Sarang, Pandurang and
Indrajit, who had also come to watch the play, gave him kicks and fist
blows. That time, Nilkant, Bhalchandra and Vyankat separated them.
While he was proceeding to his house, above four persons followed
him. He deposed that Sarang dealt blow on him but it was intervened
by Nilkant and while they jostled, the knife struck on the belly of
Nilkant. He further stated that, Lala came with knife and dealt blow
on his right belly. Vikram Watane and Bhalchandra took him to his
house.
Even in his cross, above sequence has not been questioned.
Questioning regarding how many people had gathered, itself shows
that very occurrence is not challenged.
10. PW3 Venkat is an independent witness, who had not only
separated the occurrence, but has also taken PW2 to hospital. He, in
his evidence at Exhibit 24 stated that, initially accused persons before
the court gave kicks and fist blows to Subhash and he himself
intervened. That, when Subhash was proceeding towards his house,
Sarang rushed over Subhash with knife but was intercepted and
intervened by Nilkant and the knife struck Nilkant on the belly.
Thereafter, Lala gave knife blow on belly of Subhash.
CriAppeal-156-2006
In cross, his above testimony has remained intact and
unshaken.
11. Therefore, on critical evaluation of evidence of PW1 to PW3,
occurrence of assault has come on record. It is true that, there is
variance in the name of accused as stated by PW1 and PW2. But PW1
himself is an injured and he suffered knife blow and fell and therefore
is not expected to recount who did what with precision. PW2, another
injured and PW3 independent eye witness are consistent about
Sarang and Lalasaheb both using knives.
12. PW8 and PW9 are the medical experts who had examined and
treated Subhash and Nilkant respectively, and they have issued
medical certificates. PW8 Dr. Mukteshwar has stated that injury to
Subhash was due to sharp and hard object, and PW9 Dr. Ghunalkar
has stated about injury to be due to light and cutting object. PW8 in
cross admitted that injury suffered by PW2 Subhash is not on vital
part. PW9, who treated PW1 Nilkant, has stated that injury suffered is
possible by light cutting weapon. Therefore, evidence of informant-
injured PW1 and another injured PW2 finds support from evidence of
PW8 and PW9.
CriAppeal-156-2006
13. Consequently, role of appellant Sarang and Lala are cogently
coming on record. Though panchas to the recovery have not
supported, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
Investigating Officer.
14. PW1 , PW2 and PW3 are naming Lala and Sarang, i.e. original
accused nos. 1 and 2. These three witnesses, whose testimonies are
worthy of credence, have not attributed major role to Indrajit and
Pandurang. They are named only for jostling or giving kicks and fist
blows to Subhash. Therefore, with such quality of evidence against
them, and they are not named for using any article like knife, they
need not be held guilty for offence under Sections 326 or 324 of IPC.
15. Perused the judgment. The trial Judge has committed no error
in holding accused nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Lala and Sarang guilty for offence
under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC, as prosecution has demonstrated
that they both were armed with knives and they used the same in
inflicting blows on part like belly. Medical evidence supports above
injuries and such evidence is rightly appreciated. However, learned
trial court has failed to appreciate that no role is played by appellants
Pandurang and Indrajit, and therefore, they ought not to have been
CriAppeal-156-2006
held guilty for either of the charge. Resultantly, interference to that
extent becomes imperative.
16. In the alternative, learned counsel for appellants has urged to
award sentence for the period already undergone, as occurrence is
two decades back and that sword of conviction is hanging over their
head since then. It is true that occurrence is of the year 2002.
Conviction recorded by trial court is of 2006. Appeal is heard and
decided in 2025. Therefore, 19 years have apparently lapsed since
conviction. Therefore, considering the medical evidence about use of
light sharp weapon and when medical expert has admitted in cross
that injury suffered by Subhash is not on vital part, in the considered
opinion of the court, sentence deserves to be reduced. Hence,
following order is passed :
ORDER
I. The appeal is partly allowed.
II. The conviction awarded to the appellant no.1 Lalasaheb Laxman
Bondar and appellant no.2 Sarang Babruwan Bondar by 2nd
Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case
No. 36/2003 under Sections 324 r/w 34 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC
on 13.02.2006, is hereby maintained.
CriAppeal-156-2006
However
III. Sentence awarded to appellant no. 1 Lalasaheb Laxman Bondar
and appellant no.2 Sarang Babruwan Bondar is modified and
reduced to the following effect :
(a) Appellant-accused no.1 Lalasaheb Laxman Bondar and appellant-
accused no.2 Sarang Babruwan Bondar are sentenced to suffer
R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) each, in default to suffer R.I. for fifteen days
each, for offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC
AND
(b) Appellant-accused no.1 Lalasaheb Laxman Bondar and appellant-
accused no.2 Sarang Babruwan Bondar are sentenced to suffer
R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only) each, in defalut to suffer R.I. for one month
each, for offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
(c) Both sentences shall run concurrently.
IV. The fine amount, if deposited by appellant nos. 1 and 2, be given
in equal share to PW1 and PW2 as compensation.
V. The conviction awarded to the appellant no. 3 Indrajit
Govardhan Bondar and appellant no.4 Pandurang Bajirao
Bondar by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in
Sessions Case No. 36/2003 under Sections 324 r/w 34 and 326
r/w 34 of IPC on 13.02.2006 stands quashed and set aside.
CriAppeal-156-2006
VI. Appellant no. 3 Indrajit Govardhan Bondar and appellant no.4
Pandurang Bajirao Bondar stand acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections 324 r/w 34 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
VII. Bail bonds of the Appellant no. 3 Indrajit Govardhan Bondar and
appellant no.4 Pandurang Bajirao Bondar stand cancelled.
VIII. Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant no. 3
Indrajit Govardhan Bondar and appellant no.4 Pandurang
Bajirao Bondar after the statutory period.
IX. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
regarding disposal of muddemal.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
