Bombay High Court
Parmeshwar Umaji Khatikmare vs Ramnath Dashrath Sontakke And Another on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31884
-1- Cri.Revn.210.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2025
Paremshwar Umaji Khatikmare
Age: 38 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Partur,
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. ... Applicant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1. Mr. Ramnath Dashrath Sontakke,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Mahadeo Mandir, Dhohar Galli,
Partur, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna
At present R/o Room no. 103,
Naw Kasturi Housing Society viving Titol,
Kalyan (East), Tq. Kalyan, Dist. Thane.
Paryayi Address:
Prashaskiy Adhikari(Shala), F/Dakshin
Vibhag, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg,
Vistarit Imarat, 4th floor,
Parel, Mumbai-400012.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through officer In-charge,
Partur Police Station,
Tal. Partur Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents.
......
Mr. A. M. Inamdar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. V. B. Giri, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Respondent No.2 - State.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 17 NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 NOVEMBER 2025
-2- Cri.Revn.210.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In this revision, there is challenge to the judgment and order
dated 23.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in
Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2022 arising out of judgment and order dated
06.05.2022 in R.C.C. No. 161 of 2018 tried for offence punishable under
section 324 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Learned trial court was pleased to acquit the accused
respondent, whereas, learned first appellate court was pleased to uphold
the above order of acquittal, thereby dismissing the first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by above both judgments and orders,
original informant has preferred instant appeal.
3. It appears that, FIR was registered in consequence to order
of section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Informant PW2 Parmeshwar testified at
Exh.18 that alleged incident is of 28.05.2018. While he was returning
from court work, respondent Ramnath questioned him whether he is
taking case registered against him back. On refusal, it is alleged that
Ramnath inflicted 2-3 blows by means of blade on the chest of informant,
and therefore, he gave statement in consequence to directions issued
under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
-3- Cri.Revn.210.2025
While under cross he admitted that, accused is brother-in-
law and that he has been residing separately from his wife since 5-6 years
though he denied strained relations between him and his wife. He
expressed ignorance as to whether his wife stayed with accused at
Mumbai, but admitted that she had filed maintenance petition against
him. He also admitted filing complaint against Police Constable Shukre
for maintaining relations with his wife. Regarding incidence, he is cross
examined in paragraph nos.3 and 4 and he has answered that incident
took place at around 4:00 p.m. and incident lasted for 10-15 minutes. In
paragraph no.5, he has denied knowing Vidhur Vishwanath Jaid as well
as Gangadhar Mane. He answered that, at the time of incident, around
10 to 15 persons were gathered. Suggestions about he to be a driver and
possibility of suffering injury while changing tyre has been denied.
4. PW4 Rafiq is also another crucial witness as he is examined
by prosecution as an independent witness. His evidence is at Exh.21 and
it is his testimony that on 28.05.2018 there was quarrel going on
between informant and one person and said person inflicted blow with
blade or something like that and the quarrel was resolved by his
indulgence.
While under cross, he stated that he knew informant since
3-4 years. He admitted that, at the time of incident, other persons had
-4- Cri.Revn.210.2025
gathered, but he is unable to state on what count two persons were
quarreled.
5. PW3 Gangadhar is panch to spot and PW5 Vidhur is panch to
seizure of blade. PW1 Dr. Dipmala is the doctor and she has testified
about examining PW2 informant and noticing cut injuries on the chest,
and according to her, the same are possible by sharp weapon.
6. Here, before this court learned counsel for revisionist would
submit that there is convincing, cogent and reliable evidence.
Complainant's evidence finds support from independent eye witness
account. There is recovery of blade. Treating doctor has also been
examined, and therefore, according to him, prosecution had made out
case for attracting charges under section 324 of IPC.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has
pointed out that, there is false implication. It is pointed out that, initially,
in N.C. different story was narrated, but at the time of statement
recorded in pursuance to section 156(3) Cr.P.C., totally different version
has been narrated. That, though independent witness has been examined,
said witness has merely mentioned about quarrel between PW2 and one
person. Therefore, the said person was not known and as such, according
-5- Cri.Revn.210.2025
to him, investigating machinery ought to have conducted T.I. parade, but
the same has not been done. He also pointed out that, recovery is
unworthy of credence, because it is not under section 27 of Evidence Act
and there is no disclosure of present accused.
8. As pointed out, on visiting contents of statement under
section 156(3) and on comparing with evidence given in the court,
apparently, there is no consistency. In report, he has stated that he and
accused were alone, but in witness box he has deposed that there were
several persons. In witness box, he has not stated that PW3 had indulged
and separated the quarrel. Therefore, the FIR does not carry reference of
PW3, he cannot be said to be an eye witness.
9. As pointed out, there is recovery and even prosecution has
examined PW5 Vidhur. This witness has stated that, on 16.10.2018, he
was called as panch to seizure of blade and panchanama was drawn.
However, as pointed out said recovery is after inordinate delay of almost
2 months as occurrence is of 28.05.2018. Again as pointed out, testimony
of PW5 does not show that recovery of the blade was at the instance of
accused respondent. Further, this witness PW5 in cross has admitted that
he knew PW2 since 7 to 8 years, but surprisingly PW2 in his cross denied
knowing this witness also. Therefore, for above reasons, case of
-6- Cri.Revn.210.2025
prosecution comes under shadow of doubt. There is admittedly previous
enmity. Accused happens to be brother-in-law of complainant and due to
strained relations with PW2 his own wife was residing with accused
which could be the cause of instance.
10. Both, learned trial court as well as first appellate court have
disbelieved the prosecution's story and has acquitted accused. Therefore,
both courts have given concurrent findings. Bearing in mind the settled
principle that there is double presumption of innocence, the evidence of
all above witnesses in a case of prosecution, can not be accepted. There
being no merit in the revision application, I proceed to pass the following
order :
ORDER
The criminal revision application stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
