Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Yogesh Manohar Kulkarni on 6 November, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:47096 16 REVN 321,322.17.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.321 OF 2017
State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
Versus
Yogesh Manohar Kulkarni ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2017
State of Maharashtra ...Applicant
Versus
Kundlik Fakirrao Shinde & Ors ...Respondents
Ms. G.P. Mulekar, APP , Advocate for Applicant-State.
Mr. A.N. Baig a/w Mr. A.A. Shaikh for Respondents.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 6th November 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Mulekar, learned APP for the Applicant-State and
Mr. Baig, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. By the present Criminal Revision Application, the challenge
is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 6 th
March 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City
Sessions Court, Borivli Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in Criminal
Appeal No. 97 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 2010. The
Dusane
16 REVN 321,322.17.DOC
said Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2010 has been filed by Accused
No.5 and the said Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2010 has been filed
by the Accused Nos. 1 to 4.
3. It is the main contention of Ms. Mulekar, learned APP that
the offence is serious and after holding that the offence is proved,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has erred in reducing the
sentence. She submits that the reasoning given that the
Respondents-Accused are senior citizens is not correct.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Baig, learned Counsel for the
Respondents submits that the Respondent No.1 is bedridden, other
Respondents are also old and therefore, no interference in the
impugned Order is warranted. He further submits that the said
Respondents have undergone punishment and therefore also, the
impugned Orders be not interfered.
5. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph no.3 of the
impugned Order dated 6th March 2017 of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, which reads as under :-
Dusane
16 REVN 321,322.17.DOC
"On 29/04/2002 Smt. Bhamini (Laxmi), wife of
Tukaram Bhekre reported the offence to the Borivali
Police Station, F.I.R. No.125/2002 for the offences
u/s.323, 324, 403 r/w.34 and 149, 143, 144, 145 and
147 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered
against all the 5 appellants/accused. The Investigating
Officer of the Borivali Police Station investigated crime
and filed the Chargesheet in the M.M., 26th Court,
Borivali against all 5 appellants/accused. The informant
Smt.Bhamini Bhekre reported that her husband was
serving in the railway and in the year 1989 under
MHADA scheme at Gorai, Plot No.26, Sai Siddhi CHS,
Room No.A/8 purchased by her husband. After the
retirement, she was residing with her husband in said
room. In December 2000 her husband passed away and
said room was transferred in her name. The informant
Bhamini resides at present with her son Sudhir, daughter
Surekha and day alternatively visiting the room at Gorai.
One caretaker is appointed to look after the room.
Fifteen days prior to the incident, the informant and her
both sons came to the room No.A/8 in order to carry out
the repairing work. Accused Shinde, Shelar and Sable
residing in Sai Siddhi CHS demanded illegal money of
Rs.25,000/- under the pretext of donation if the
informant Bhamini wants to repair the room. He
obligated her to pay it. She refused to pay the donation.
On 10/03/2002 the complainant Bhamini, her sons
Jeetendra and Sudhir came to her room in Sai Siddhi
Society. At that time accused gathered and obstructed
Bhamini and her sons from entering the room. Because
of altercations, the people gathered. In the scuffle, the
accused beat and assaulted the complainant Bhamini
and her two sons by fists and kicks and caused injury on
the mouth of the complainant and to both of her sons.
Also deprived her gold necklace worth about 30 gms., a
bag containing the cash of Rs.30,000/- in scuffle. When
Dusane
16 REVN 321,322.17.DOC
the complainant shouted for help, the accused escaped
away. Accordingly, the F.I.R. registered on 11/03/2002
next day of the incident. The complainant and her both
sons approached Bhagwati Hospital, collected injury
certificates and also certain documents. On completion
of investigation, Borivali Police Station filed the
Chargesheet".
6. The reasoning given by the learned Appellate Court for
reducing sentence is to be found in paragraph 13, which reads as
under :
"13. Keeping in view the evidence of the prosecution, I
come to the conclusion that there was sufficient
evidence before the M.M., 26th Court for proof of
commission of the offence for causing injury to the
complainant Smt.Bhamini (PW 1) and also to her sons
(PW 2) and (PW 3). While passing the sentence, the
M.M. considered that rigorous punishment is necessary
in order to prevent future crime at the hands of the
appellants/accused. However, he has passed the
sentence of 3 months Simple Imprisonment and fine of
Rs.500/- against each of 5 accused/appellants.
Considering the old age of the appellants/accused and
the crime caused in the year March 2002 and the
matter reached to this Court in appeal in the year 2010
and for final disposal after fresh hearing, I consider that
the sentence of the imprisonment till rising of the Court
and fine of Rs.1,000/- by each of the 5
appellants/accused shall be appropriate in order to
meet the ends of criminal justice. So I answer the point
Nos.1 and 2 in affirmative and the point No.3 in the
negative.
Dusane
16 REVN 321,322.17.DOC
7. The present age of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 is 78 years,
Accused Nos. 3 is 56 years and Accused No. 4 is 34 years. The
Accused No. 2 is bed-ridden and on ventilator. The Accused NO.5 is
60 years.
8. Ms. Mulekar, learned APP is right to some extent in
submitting that the reason given about old age of Accused, in the
year 2017 is not correct, however, it is required to be noted that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has also taken into
consideration certain other aspects including that the offence has
taken place in the year 2002 and that the trial is concluded in the
year 2010.
9. Thus, considering overall circumstances, although no
interference in the impugned Judgment and Order is warranted,
however, the fine imposed on each of the Accused of Rs.1,000/-
each is increased to Rs.10,000/- each. The said fine be deposited in
the Court of the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate within a
period of eight weeks from today.
Dusane
16 REVN 321,322.17.DOC
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Applications are
dismissed, subject to above.
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL DUSANE (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
Dusane
