Bombay High Court

Rakesh Dharamsingh Rod vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 November, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:48251

               S.S.Kilaje                                                 29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1186 OF 2024
                                                    WITH
                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4024 OF 2024

                        Rakesh Dharmamsingh Rod
                        Age : 35 years; Occ : -
                        Kurla footpath mumbai at Gutha,
                        Tal. Gharonda, Dist. Karnal, Haryana
                        Presently in Nashik Road Central Prision, Nashik              ... Appellant
                                  Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Kurla Railway Police Station               ... Respondent
                                                 ................
                       Mr. Sushan N. Mhatre, Advocate for the Appellant.
                       Mr. C.D.Mali, APP for the State.

                                                     CORAM         : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED         : 10th NOVEMBER, 2025.

               JUDGMENT :

1. By consent of both the sides heard finally.

2. This Appeal is filed by the appellant taking exception to the

Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 2015 of 2019 whereby the appellant

is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 152 of Railways Act, 1989 and

sentenced to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine.

3. The facts which led to filing of this appeal can be narrated in brief as

under :

S.S.Kilaje 29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc

4. On 16.07.2019 the informant was returning from his workplace to

his residence at Ghatkopar. He boarded Khopoli bound local train at

Dadar Station from platform No. 4. He was to travel upto Ghatkopar.

Between Kurla and Ghatkopar while he was standing on the footboard in

order to get down at his destination station, all of a sudden a stone came

to be pelted at the local train which hit to the head of the informant. Due

to the said assault, informant sustained bleeding injury to his head and was

about to fall out of the local train. Fortunately for him, co-passenger

caught hold of him which prevented his fall from the train. He was taken

to Rajawadi Hospital and from there he went to lodge report of the

incident. When he reached Kurla Railway police station and lodged report,

the police having noticed similar another incident have accosted a person.

This person came to be identified as the one who pelted stone at

informant. The crime came to be registered vide C.R.No. 2700 of 2019 for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 152 of

Railways Act. Investigation was conducted and on completion thereof,

chargesheet came to be filed.

5. Before Trial Court charge was framed against the accused and since

he denied the said charge, prosecution led evidence of 8 witnesses to bring

home guilt of the accused. Prosecution examined Rajesh Pawar, PW-1

injured (Exhibit-17), Amjad Shaikh, PW-2 (Exhibit-19) Scrap businessman,

S.S.Kilaje 29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc

Sunil Rupwate, PW-3 co-passenger (Exhibit-20), Ratnadeep Chandanshive,

PW-4 co-passenger and injured (Exhibit-21), Vijay Bandgar, PW-5 Police

Constable (Exhibit-22) who accosted the accused, Dr. Manoj Verma, PW-6

Medical Officer (Exhibit-23), Santosh Gupra, PW-7, Investigating Officer

and Surekha Medhe, PW-8 (Exhibit-29). On completion of the evidence of

the prosecution incrementing circumstances were put to the accused under

Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") learned Trial

Court after hearing both sides convicted the accused by passing impugned

Judgment and order hence this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence

to conclusively prove the guilt of the accused. It is his submission that no

motive has been shown by the prosecution for appellant to commit the

said crime. It is his submission that testimony of informant, injured Rajesh

is not sufficient to prove the identification of the accused as the person

who pelted stone on trains. It is his further argument that on the basis of

testimony of Amjad, PW-2 it cannot be said that the unprovoked appellant

would commit the such act. Finally it is argued that since the prosecution

has failed to discharge the burden of prove of guilt beyond reasonable

doubt, it is a fit case for setting aside the impugned order and acquitting

the accused from the charges.

7. Learned APP opposed the appeal by pointing out the evidence led on

S.S.Kilaje 29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc

record. It is his submission that there is no reason for Rajesh, Sunil and

Ratnadeep to falsely identify the appellant as the person who had pelted

the stones on the train and which has resulted into causing of injuries to

them. It is his submission that the case of pelting of stone on the train was

within the knowledge of the appellant to be so imminently dangerous that

in all probability have caused death of the injured. It is his submission

that the testimony of injured witnesses gets support from the medical

evidence on record and having regard to the facts of the case, no

interference is required in the impugned judgment.

8. In order to prove the offence of attempt to commit murder as

contemplated by Section 307 of IPC in the present case the prosecution has

to prove that the accused is the person who has done the act in question

and such act was either with the intention of causing death or the act if

committed would have been so imminently dangerous that it would have

been all probability caused death and the such act was without any

justification for incurring the risk of causing death.

9. In order to prove the charges against the appellant / accused, the

prosecution led evidence of injured witnesses so also eye witness to the

incident. Rajesh, PW-1 and Ratnadeep, PW-4 are injured witnesses who

suffered injuries to the head and hand respectively. The said evidence of

the injured witnesses gets support from testimony of Dr. Verma who has

S.S.Kilaje 29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc

proved the injuries caused to them.

10. The evidence led by these witnesses indicate that the witnesses were

in the running local train and for the purpose of alighting at destination

station, they were on the footboard of the train. In so far as the

identification of the accused to be the person who has pelted the stone is

concerned, even if it is accepted that Rajesh has not seen the person who

threw stone at the local train, but evidence of Sunil and Ratnadeep is

sufficient to establish his identity. Pertinently immediately after the

incident they have identified the appellant to be the person who has done

the act in question so also before the Court. Though it is now said to be

argued on behalf of the appellant that identity of the appellant to be the

person who threw/ pelted stone on the train is challenged, in the

statement under Section 313 in response to question No.39 appellant has

stated that "falsely implicated in this case and had merely pelted stone on

the train". This statement unequivocally shows that the appellant is the

person who pelted stone on the moving train.

11. It is matter of common knowledge that either owing to the rush or

for the reason of preparing for getting down from the train to the

destination station, the passengers tend to be on footboard of train.

Needless to say that any person hit by the stone in a moving train is likely

to fall from the train and with probably would cause for his death. When

S.S.Kilaje 29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc

the appellant threw stone on the local train, it would have been within his

knowledge that his act is so immanently dangerous that in all probability it

would cause death of the passengers in the train.

12. This Court therefore finds the charge for the offences under Section

307 of IPC and 152 of Railways Act being proved against the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The

order of conviction therefore requires no interference.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant on the point of sentence

submits that the appellant had no criminal history nor had any intention to

cause injury particularly to the witnesses or to commit their murder and in

such circumstances, since the appellant has already spent around six years

in the jail, the same would be sufficient punishment for him requiring his

release forthwith.

14. Learned APP opposed the said contention by citing seriousness of the

crime.

15. The appellant had no criminal history prior to the incident in

question. He has already undergone sentence of about six years having

arrested on 16.7.2019 and in jail since then. in considered view of this

Court, the period spent by him in jail would be sufficient punishment for

the appellant for the proved crime against him. As a result of this

discussion the follow order :

                              S.S.Kilaje                                                     29-Cri. Appeal-1186-2024.doc




                                                                              ORDER

                                                      (i)      The appeal stands partly allowed.

(ii) The order of conviction recorded against the

appellant for the offences punishable under Section

307 of IPC and Section 152 of Railways Act stands

confirmed.

(iii) The appellant is sentence to suffered imprisonment

for a period already undergone, which shall include

default sentence of non payment of fine amount.

(iv) The appellant be released forthwith.

(v) Since appellant is in jail and he is represented by

Legal Aid counsel, Registry to forthwith forward this

order to Jail Authority for its compliance.

16. In view of disposal of appeal, interim application does not survive