Rajkumar Balbhim Adatrao vs State Of Mah
2025 Latest Caselaw 2329 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rajkumar Balbhim Adatrao vs State Of Mah on 3 February, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:2989


                                          -1-                   Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2006


                Rajkumar Balbhim Adatrao,
                Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Labour,
                R/o. Karajkheda,
                Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad                                 ..... Appellant
                                                                       (Ori. Accused)


                      VERSUS


                The State of Maharashtra
                Through Bhikaji Pandharinath Mudable,
                Age : 40 Yrs., Occu. : Service,
                R/o. Bhandari, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.                .....   Respondent
                                          .....
                Advocate for Appellant : Mr. N.B. Jadhav
                APP for Respondent-State : Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari
                                         .....


                                         CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON   : 27th January, 2025
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 03rd February, 2025

                JUDGMENT :

1. In present appeal, exception has been taken to the

judgment and order dated 10.11.2005, passed by learned II nd Ad-hoc

Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case

No.104/2003, recording guilt of the present appellant for offences

under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

-2- Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

IN NUTSHELL, CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS UNDER :

2. On 30.04.2003, while informant Bhikaji Pandharinath

Mudable was proceeding on his motorcycle to Bhandari from

Karajkheda, the appellant dealt chain blow on his hand. He informed

the said incident to police patil. Being annoyed, the appellant

threatened to see him. On 01.05.2003 at about 03.00 a.m., one

Dadasaheb Narsing Patil came to his house and told that, the

appellant set fire his heap of fodder, cattle shed and house and ran

away. Thereby, monetary damage was caused to the informant.

Therefore, the informant lodged a complaint against the appellant,

bearing Crime No.30/2003 at Bembli Police Station, for above

offences and on completion of investigation, the appellant was

charge-sheeted.

3. The appellant was tried by learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Osmanabad for above offences. On complete

appreciation and analysis of the evidence, learned trial Judge by his

judgment and order dated 10.11.2005, held the appellant guilty and

sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay

fine.

                            -3-                     Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

                            SUBMISSIONS


ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT :

4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, there

is false implication. The allegation is set house on fire. But it was not

a residential house, rather it was mere a hut. There was no intention.

FIR is by person, who has not seen actual occurrence of igniting the

hut or fodder. That, implication is on suspicion. There was dispute

between brothers and father. He further pointed out that, alleged

incidence took place in the dark night and so called witnesses speaks

about seeing the occurrence from 60 feet away. That, evidence of so

called witnesses is not convincing. Lastly, he submitted that, learned

trial court has not considered the legal requirements and without

assigning any sound reasons, has recorded guilt by accepting the

prosecution version and hence, he seeks indulgence.

5. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that, the appellant was tried in Sessions Case No.104/2003 and he

was arrested on 10.11.2005 and was granted bail on 14.02.2006 and

he, as such, suffered imprisonment of three months and so, the

appellant be set off the sentence already undergone.

-4- Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE :

6. Learned APP opposed on the ground that, there is direct

and independent witness on account of incidence. Testimony of

witnesses has remained intact and unshaken. Offence is proved.

Required ingredients are available and as such, according to learned

APP, no fault can be found in the appreciation or the conclusion

reached by learned trial Judge and hence, she prays for dismissing the

appeal for want of merits.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT :

7. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined in all

five witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of

their evidence can be summarized as under :

PW1 Informant Mr. Bhikaji Pandharinath Mudable. In his substantive evidence at Exhibit 11, para.1 narrated as under :

"1. In the year 2003 I was working as teacher at village Dutta. On 30.04.2003, I was coming on motor cycle from Patoda at about 8.30 p.m. At that time, accused Rajkumar dealt chain blow on me. Accordingly, I had gone to my house and informed the incident to police patil. Even I informed the said fact to police station on telephone. Thereafter accused met me and gave threat that he will see me. Thereafter I go to home and after meal I had go to bed. Thereafter at about 2.30

-5- Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

a.m. I learnt from one Dadasaheb Patil that my fodder was put to fire and he told that Raja has set fire to it. Accordingly I had gone there. The people were estinghuishing the fire. Tatyarao Suryavanshi, Manohar Dhotre were there. I saw that my house shed, cattle shed and fodder heap was burnt, thereby damage of Rs.35000/- caused to me. Thereafter I go to police station and lodged the complaint. The complaint now shown to me is same. It contents are correct. It bears my signature. It is at exh.12.

PW2 Mr. Dadasaheb Narsingrao Patil (Eye Witness). In his substantive evidence at Exhibit 13, para.1 narrated as under :

"1. On 30.04.2022 I was going for the water at about 2.30 a.m. The house of parents of complainant was there. Rajkumar had set fire to the house as well as the heap of fodder of Bhikaji. We tried to caught him however he ran away. For many days, he was not traced. The accused before the Court is same who has set fire."

PW3 Mr. Manohar Anantrao Dhotre (Eye Witness). In his substantive evidence at Exhibit 14, para.1 narrated as under :

"1. During 30.04.2003 to 01.05.2003 at about 2.30 a.m. We were taking the tab drinking water. At that time, Dadasaheb Patil, Tatyasaheb Suryawanshi were present there. We saw that accused Rajkumar had lite match stick and thrown on heap of fodder. It was of Bhikaji Mudave. Even, his parents were also residing there. As such fire spread. We tried to extinguish it. Accused ran away after setting fire. The accused before the Court is the same.

-6- Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

PW4 Mr. Tatyarao Shrirang Suryawanshi (Eye Witness). He, in his evidence at Exh.15, deposed in similar lines of PW3 Manohar.

PW5 Mr. Sharanappa Shivlingappa Patane, Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bembli. In his substantive evidence at Exhibit 18, para.1 narrated as under :

"1. On 01.05.2003 I was working as PSI to Bembli Police Station. Bhikaji Pandharinath Mudave had come to police station and lodged the complaint. I recorded it. The complaint not shown to me is same. On the basis of complaint, I registered Cr. No.30/03 and took over the investigation. I visited the spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama in presence of panchas vide exh.17. I recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter accused was arrested. On completion of investigation I filed the charge-sheet."

ANALYSIS

8. Re-appreciated the evidence of PW1 Bhikaji, PW2

Dadasaheb and PW3 Manohar. PW1 informant Bhikaji Pandharinath

Mudable, seems to be a teacher and report to police seems to have

been his instance. He claims that, he learnt from Dadasaheb Patil that,

his shed containing heap of fodder was set fire by the present

appellant. Apparently, on report by this independent witness, crime

has been registered.

-7- Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

9. PW2 Dadasaheb Narsingrao Patil is crucial witness. He,

in his evidence, has stated that, on 30.04.2002, he saw the appellant

set fire the shed containing heap of fodder and ran away.

10. PW3 Manohar Anantrao Dhotre, seems to be also an

independent witness and he has also specifically testified in witness

box about seeing the appellant lite the match stick and thrown out on

heap of fodder and he tried to extinguish fire. He also deposed about

seeing the appellant ran away.

11. Here, evidence of all the eye witnesses is taken into

account. Their testimonies in the witness box have remained intact. In

spite of cross, nothing adverse has been brought so as to disbelieve

the prosecution version. Spot panchanama is drawn and with such

evidence, the view taken by the learned trial court is a just and

possible view. No infirmity is brought to the notice of this Court in the

manner and appreciation or the reasons assigned. However, taking

into consideration the alternative submissions that, there is case of

2003 and learned trial court has concluded by virtue of judgment on

10.11.2005, sentence awarded by learned trial Judge seems to be on

higher side and more than a decade has lapsed, sentence awarded is

required to be reduced. In the result, following order is passed.

                            -8-                     Cri Appeal No. 86.2006

                                 ORDER

      I.     The appeal is partly allowed.

      II.    Conviction awarded to appellant Rajkumar Balbhim

Adatrao, by learned IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,

Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No.104/2003, for offences under

Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on

10.11.2005, is hereby maintained, however, the sentence is

modified and reduced as under :

a) Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months, for offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

b) Accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months, for offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

III. There is no change in fine amount as well as in-default

sentence.

IV. Both the sentences to run concurrently.

V. The appellant is entitled for set-off under Section 428 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

asd