Bombay High Court
Ramrao Shankar Pesode And Another vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Khamgaon Rural ... on 19 March, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3599
11.rev.198.2023.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2023
1) Ramrao Shankar Pesode,
Aged about 65 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
2) Arun Ramrao Pesode,
Aged about 23 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
Both R/o Pimprala,
Taluka - Khamgaon,
District - Buldhana. ..... APPLICANTS
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Khamgaon, Rural
Taluka Khamgaon,
District - Buldhana. .... NON-APPLICANT
----------------------------------------
Ms. Poonam Pisurde, Counsel h/f Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Counsel for
the applicants.
Ms. Ritu Sharma, APP for non-applicant/State.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 19.03.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Admit.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned
APP for the non-applicant/State.
3. The applicants are assailed the judgment dated
07.02.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2 nd
Court, Khamgaon in Regular Criminal Case No.10/2008 whereby the
11.rev.198.2023.Judgment.odt
applicants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in
default payment of fine, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for
one month.
4. The applicants challenged the said judgment and
conviction in Criminal Appeal No.14/2013 which is dismissed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon on 03.07.2023.
5. As per the prosecution's case, the applicants and the
informant are the neighbours. The incident took place on
01.10.2007 at village Pimprala near the house of the informant. At
the relevant time of incident, the construction of the house of the
informant was in progress. The construction material was kept near
the house in order to save the raw material from destruction. The
accused alleged to have raised quarrel, on count that those bags
which are laid down by the informant, are coming within the area of
property owned by them. Though the applicants were convinced,
but they were not in a position to hear. On that count, the quarrel
was started and in that quarrel, the present applicants assaulted the
informant. As per the allegation, the applicant No.1 Ramrao
Shankar Pesode went at his home and brought the axe from his
home, whereas the another accused No.2 Arun Ramrao Pesode also
present there. Ramrao assaulted him by means of axe by giving
11.rev.198.2023.Judgment.odt
blow on his head, whereas Arun has assaulted and manhandled
him. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the
crime.
6. During registration the formality of visiting the spot of
incident, arrested the accused, recording the statements of the
relevant witnesses and drawing the spot panchanama was done by
the Investigating Officer. After completion of the investigation, he
submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The charge was
framed and in support of the charge, the prosecution has examined
in all six witnesses. The informant is examined as PW-1 who
narrated about the incident during his chief-examination. Though
he was cross-examined at length, nothing incriminating is brought
on record to shatter the incident as to the assault is concerned. To
substantiate and to corroborate his version PW-2 Wasudeo Namdeo
Bilewar is examined who has acted as a panch on the spot
panchnama. PW-3 is Dinkar Tulshiram Paisode, who is also the eye
witness of the incident, he testified that the accused Ramrao was
armed with an axe and he had given the blow of axe to the
informant. PW-4 Mangla Prakash Paisode is also an eye witness of
the said incident. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. PW-6 is the
Medical Officer whose evidence shows that on examination of the
informant, she observed the injuries at CLW over right side of
forehead left parietal 3 inch half, CLW size 1 inch X 1/2 inch on
11.rev.198.2023.Judgment.odt
frontal bone, abrasion 1 cm X 1/2 cm lateral side of right eye,
contusion with abrasion 4 cm X 3 cm left arm and abrasion 1 cm,
1/2 cm left earlobe. The evidence of the Medical Officer further
shows that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.
The healing period for first and second injury was 8 to 10 days and
healing period for third injury was 4 to 5 days in absence of any
complications. The x-ray was suggested, however it was not done.
Accordingly, she prepared the medical certificate and issued the
certificate. She is also cross-examined. During cross-examination
also she admitted that if the injury within a period of six hours it
can be stated as fresh injury. If a person assaulted by means of axe
the injury of shortcut nature occurred. The injury certificate
nowhere shows that injury is by sharp edged weapon, but she has
mentioned that injury is by hard and blunt object.
7. After appreciating the evidence, learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class has held the applicants as guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and
convicted them as aforestated. Being aggrieved with the same, the
appeal is preferred by the present applicants which also came to be
dismissed by appreciating the evidence on record.
8. I have perused the material on record and after going
through the evidence, the involvement of the present applicants
revealed and there is no reason to disagree with the findings of fact
11.rev.198.2023.Judgment.odt
recorded concurrently by the trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court. It does not appear that the applicants subsequently involved
in any other criminal matters. There are no criminal antecedents
prior to the incident and subsequent to the incident also. On
appreciation of the facts, it reveals that the incident occurred due to
the dispute between the two neighbours on account of keeping the
construction material allegedly in the premises of the present
applicants. Thus, there was neither intention to cause any harm to
the injured, however there was a knowledge. Admittedly, the
incident occurred on 01.10.2007. The applicant No.1 is having
family, including wife and other family members. The applicant
No.1 is now old aged person and applicant No.2 is also married
person having wife and children and shouldering their
responsibilities. As the learned Counsel for the applicant requested
for the benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act, the report of
the Probation Officer of Buldhana is called. The report of the
Probation Officer has recommended the grant of probation.
9. Considering the applicants have no criminal antecedents
and subsequent to the incident also the applicants were not shown
to be involved in any other criminal activities and considering the
alleged incident has occurred between the two neighbours on
account of trifle reasons, the opportunity is to be granted to the
present applicants to reform.
11.rev.198.2023.Judgment.odt
10. While maintaining the conviction, the sentence of
imprisonment and payment of fine is not required, and therefore, it
requires to be set aside and the same the applicants can be
released on probation.
11. In view of that, it is directed that the applicants shall
remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer for
the next two years, the applicant shall enter into a bond to
permanently reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the District
Probation Officer, Buldhana and to furnish to the Probation Officer
his mobile number and permanent address. The applicants shall
further undertake not to take themselves in any criminal or
otherwise undesirable activities.
12. The revision application is allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
13. The revision application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Sarkate.
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/04/2025 12:10:07
