[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Haridas Bhagwan Lohkare And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:10565
REVN-146-2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.146 OF 2021
1. Haridas S/o. Bhagwan Lohkare,
Age : 68 years, Occu. : Agril,
2. Pandurang @Maroti S/o. Bhagwan Lohkare,
Age : 57 years, Occu. : Service.
3. Shrirang S/o. Bhagwan Lohkare,
Age: 50 years, Occu. : Agril.,
4. Shivaji S/o. Dhanaji Lohkare,
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Agril.,
All R/o. Jagalpur, Tq. Jalkot,
Dist. Latur. ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
.....
Ms. Tejasvini S. Raut h/f. Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for
Applicants/Petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Dayma, APP for Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 MARCH 2026
ORDER :
1. Convict for offence under section 324 read with section
34 of Indian Penal Code are hereby challenging the judgment and
order dated 16.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-2, Udgir in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2011 arising out of
REVN-146-2021
judgment and order dated 02.07.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Udgir in Regular Criminal Case No. 257 of 2002.
2. Prosecution was launched against in all four accused i.e.
revisionist herein by Jalkot Police Station on accusation that, on
20.06.2002, at around 8.00 p.m., accused persons, with common
intention, initially assaulted informant Laxman Manohar Lohakare
(PW3) by means of kicks and fist blows and by stick. His father,
Manohar, when he came to his rescue, was also assaulted and
required to be taken to the hospital. PW3 Laxman lodged report with
Jalkot Police Station bearing Crime No. 44 of 2002 for offence
punishable under sections 326, 323, 504 and 506 read with section
34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, all four accused were
charge-sheeted and tried vide R.C.C. No. 257 of 2002 by the learned
J.M.F.C., Udgir, who on appreciation of evidence, and on hearing
respective parties, accepted the case of prosecution and recorded the
guilt of the accused for offence punishable under sections 326 read
with section 34 of IPC, but acquitted from charge under sections 323,
504 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. The above order of conviction was questioned by accused
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir vide Criminal
Appeal No. 10 of 2011. By judgment and order 16.09.2021, the
REVN-146-2021
appeal was partly allowed, and the First Appellate Court acquitted
the accused for offence punishable under sections 326, 323, 504 and
506, but held the accused guilty for offence under section 324 of IPC.
Feeling aggrieved by the above, appellants have preferred
instant revision by invoking section 401 read with 397 of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would point out
that, there is false implication. That, there was no independent eye
witness account. That, case of prosecution is accepted on the basis of
interested witnesses. According to learned counsel, learned trial
Court had already acquitted the accused from offence under sections
323, 504 and 506 of IPC. That, on same set of evidence, without
essential ingredients of section 326 of IPC, conviction was recorded,
and therefore, the same was challenged. She pointed out that, even
learned First Appellate Court rightly held that essential ingredients
of section 326 of IPC were not available in the evidence and acquitted
the accused from said charge. According to her, there was no charge
for offence under section 324 of IPC, but still First Appellate Court
held accused guilty for the said charge. Thus, she questions the
legality and sustainability of the judgment of the First Appellate
Court. According to her, there was assault by mere fist and kick
blows. That, spot panchanama was not proved. That, medical
REVN-146-2021
evidence is rendered doubtful in cross examination, and therefore,
alleging incorrect appreciation of evidence and law, revision is urged
to be allowed.
5. Learned APP would justify the order of conviction on the
ground of findings and conclusion being in consonance with the
evidence on record. According to learned APP, there is no merit in
the revision.
6. Here, revisionary powers of this court are invoked under
section 397 Cr.P.C., it would be apposite to give brief account of
settled position while exercising such powers. The scope of section
397 of Cr.P.C. is repeatedly dealt by the Hon'ble Apex court in
numerous judgments.
Though there are catena of judgments, the landmark
judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9
SCC 460 is relied and the relevant observations therein are borrowed
and quoted as under :
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to
call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of
any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction
REVN-146-2021
or law. There has to be a well -founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be
in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments
of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly
erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the
finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely
indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction
of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised
in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it
should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The
Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the
Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given
case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the
categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC."
7. Therefore, the limited scope for this Court is to ascertain
whether impugned order under challenge is just, legal and proper or
REVN-146-2021
it is perverse and suffers from patent error, illegality or perversity.
With such limited scope, available evidence and impugned orders are
gone into.
8. Case of prosecution in nutshell is that, on 20.06.2002,
PW3 informant Laxman was questioned in the backdrop of dispute in
the society by Haridas i.e. accused no.1. After complainant was
caught hold by remaining accused namely Pandurang, Shivaji and
Shrirang, he was being beaten by Haridas. He was said to be
assaulted by means of kicks and fists along with stick. According to
him, when his father came to his rescue, at that time, accused
Pandurang assaulted his father by means of stick, whereas, accused
Shrirang caught hold of his father while Pandurang beat him, as a
result of which, his father fell and was required to be taken to the
hospital.
Above witness is cross examined on the aspect of other
village politics. Regarding occurrence, he is cross examined, but
above testimony has virtually remained unshaken.
PW1 Mohan seems to be the eye witness. He is an
independent witness, the manner of suggestion to him in cross
examination shows that there is no serious dispute to the occurrence
of assault. PW1 has identified the stick before the Court.
REVN-146-2021
PW2 Maroti and PW5 Waman have not supported the
prosecution.
Likewise, PW4 Manohar has also narrated, in his evidence
Exh.66, about seeing his son assaulted by accused, and thereafter, he
to be assaulted and he is an also eye witness, who has suffered
injuries to right parietal region and forehead.
PW6 Dr. Tukara Patale is the medical expert and he has
narrated nature of injuries noticed by him while examining PW4
Manohar (father of informant) and he has identified medical
certificate.
9. Therefore, from the sum total of the evidence, the
occurrence is proved by the prosecution.
10. Learned trial Court convicted accused for charge under
section 326 of IPC, but acquitted them from charge under sections
323, 504 and 506 of IPC, whereas learned First Appellatr Court
acquitted the accused revision petitioners even for charge under
section 326 of IPC and rest of the offences, but convicted them by
invoking section 324 of IPC.
11. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit
REVN-146-2021
that, there was no charge under section 324 of IPC. However,
judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that, after complete
appreciation of the evidence, nature of injuries, nature of Articles put
to use, by invoking section 222 of Cr.P.C. found that offence of section
324 of Cr.P.C. indeed was made out. How learned First Appellate
Court erred in above judgment, has not been pointed out to this
Court. No patent perversity or illegality is brought to the notice of
this Court so as to interfere in the revision. Hence, the following
order is passed :
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
