[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mahesh Balasaheb Darekar And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34255
1 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4223 OF 2025
IN APEAL/856/2025
1. Mahesh s/o Balasaheb Darekar,
Age : 27 years, Occ. : Agriculture,
R/o. Village Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Ramesh S/o Balasaheb Darekar,
Age : 34 years, Occ. : Agriculture,
R/o. Village Kashti, Tal. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Applicants/
Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Copy to be served on the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Judicature of Bombay Bench
at Aurangabad (Through Shrigonda
Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar). ... Respondent
...
Mr. N. S. Ghanekar h/f. Mr. Dhanraj S. Ingole, Advocate for
Applicants/Appellants;
Ms. M. L. Sangit, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Sudheer R. Zambare, Advocate for Intervener.
...
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 9th DECEMBER, 2025
P.C.:-
1. This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Shrigonda in Sessions Case No.47 of 2019
convicting the Applicants/Appellants for the offences under Sections
307, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian penal Code (IPC) and sentenced
2 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine
of Rs.5,000/- each with default sentence of six (6) months.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 17.08.2016, the
Applicants/Appellants were destroying the common bandh between
their agricultural field and that of the Informant. The Informant and
his mother, who is an injured witness, objected to the said Act of the
Applicants/Appellants. Applicant No.1-Mahesh Darekar drove the
tractor in the direction of the First Informant. However, he escaped
without an injury. Thereafter, the tractor was taken in a reverse
direction in a high speed, which hit the mother of the Informant and
she suffered the injuries in her ribs. The Informant's mother was taken
to the hospital for treatment and later referred to another hospital,
where she was hospitalised for 15 days. The incident was reported to
the police and crime bearing No.I-380 of 2016 came to be registered on
18.08.2016 at Shrigonda Police Station, Taluka Shrigonda, District
Ahmednagar.
3. The investigation was done and the Applicants/Appellants
came to be charge-sheeted. The prosecution examined in all 7
witnesses to prove the Charge against the Applicants/Appellants. After
the Trial, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the
Applicants/Appellants as stated above.
3 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
4. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants,
learned APP for the Respondent-State and learned Advocate for the
First Informant. With their assistance, I have gone through the
relevant evidence on record.
5. Learned Advocate for the Applicants/Appellants submits that,
they have been falsely implicated due to the civil dispute in respect of
the partition of properties. No MLC was sent by the medical officer
where the injured was firstly taken for treatment. Witness No.5 was
examined as the eye witness and he did not witness the entire incident.
The medical evidence do not corroborate the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. There is delay of one day in lodging the report.
The investigating officer was not examined which caused prejudiced to
the Applicants/Appellants. The Applicants/Appellants were on bail
throughout the trial. The Applicants/Appellants are having good case
on merits and, therefore, the sentence be suspended and they be
released on bail.
6. Learned APP for the Respondent-State submits that, PW1 and
PW2 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. They deposed of the
exact incident. Though the intention was to kill the Informant, the
tractor hit the injured witness which shows the intention. The spot
panchanama corroborate the testimony of eye witnesses. The injuries
4 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
on the injured witness are proved through the medical evidence and
the injuries were in the nature of fractures to the ribs. There is no
inordinate delay in reporting the incident to the police. The testimony
of witnesses remained unshaken in the cross-examination and the
testimonies are consistent with their previous statements. The learned
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded
the conviction and sentence and, therefore, the Application be rejected.
7. Learned Advocate for the Informant submits that the incident
is narrated by the eye witnesses, out of which, one was the injured eye
witness. There was civil dispute between the parties. The testimony of
the eye witnesses show the intention and knowledge. The spot
panchanama and medical evidence corroborate the testimony of the
eye witnesses. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and application be rejected. He relied on the order of this Court
in Navnath Sadashiv Taras & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2017 (1)
ABR (Cri) 658), Dyandev Trimbak Ukirde Vs. State of Maharashtra ,
(AIR OnLine 2020 Bom 884) and Talesh Jairam Jadhav & Ors. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (AIR OnLine 2019 Bom 3080) in support of his
submissions.
8. In Navnath (supra), one of the Accused assaulted by the stick
in the head, while another Accused person assaulted with the weapons
5 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
on the left hand and neck and the injured was kicked on his private
parts and there were four injuries the injured therein. In Navnath
(supra), the Accused therein tried to strangulate the Victim. In Talesh
(supra), the injured was assaulted with knife blows and there were
four stab injuries.
9. In the case at hand, PW1 and PW2 are the eye witnesses to
the alleged incident. Their evidence clearly show that there was
dispute pending in the Court at Shrigonda between them. The dispute
in respect of the partition. This indicates that the parties were litigating
against each other. Though, PW5 is examined as eye witness to the
incident, the evidence of PW2 injured show that, he reached on the
spot on hearing her shouts/cry. Further, the evidence of PW5 show
that, he was the chance witness and co-incidentally cousin brother of
the Informant i.e. PW1. The evidence of PW1 show that while
Applicant No.1 drove the tractor in the high speed, the backside of the
tractor dashed against the chest of PW2 and she fell down. According
to PW2, Applicant No.1 brought the tractor in the reverse direction
towards her and the tractor hit her. There is a slightly inconsistency in
the testimony of these two witnesses in respect of dash by the tractor to
the injured witness. PW7-Doctor to whom PW2 was taken for
treatment, deposed that, he had not recorded any history of assault
and the patient had stated history of chest pain. Admittedly, the
6 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
evidence of PW6-Doctor, who is another Doctor, who examined the
injured for the fractures in the ribs nowhere show that, the MLC was
issued to the police. There is nothing to show that any of the Doctors
had issued the MLC to the police in respect of the injury caused to the
injured. The evidence of PW6 show that he did not notice any external
injury on the person of PW2. It has come in his evidence that, the
fracture injury was possible by fall and if the fracture is caused by
direct violence, there is always presence of external wound at the site
of impact.
10. Considering the above evidence on record, prima-facie,
Applicants/Appellants are having good case on merits. Both the
Applicants/Appellants were on bail during trial. The facts of the cases
relied upon by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2-Victim are
completely different from the facts of this case. The Appeal is not likely
to be heard finally in near future. The substantive sentence is in the
nature of term sentence. Thus, I am inclined to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The substantive Sentence imposed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Shrigonda in Sessions Case No.47 of
7 of 7 915-APPLN.4223.2025
2019 vide the Judgment and order dated 07.11.2025
on the Applicants/Appellants, by name, (1) Mahesh
Balasaheb Darekar and (2) Ramesh S/o Balasaheb
Darekar, for the offence punishable under Sections 307,
504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, is suspended during pendency
of the Appeal.
(iii) Applicants/Appellants - (1) Mahesh Balasaheb Darekar
and (2) Ramesh S/o Balasaheb Darekar be released on
bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- each
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety in the
like amount.
(iv) The Applicants - Appellants shall co-operate in early
hearing of the Appeal.
(v) Bail before the Trial Court.
(vi) Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Tauseef
