abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 385 OF 2007 1. Yusuf Dadamiyan Malik 2. Mrs.Roshan Yusuf Malik 3. Taha Yusuf Malik .. Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Adam E. Rindani i/b Udaipuri & Co. for the applicant. Mr.U.V. Nikam, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST JANUARY 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives service. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane confirming the order - 2 - of the Judicial Magistrate convicting the revision applicants under section 325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from 2 years to 1 year with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default further imprisonment for 3 months. 4. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the complainant was staying along with his family in Jalgaonkar Colony, Old Panvel Road, Mumbra. On 29th July 2001 at about 7.15 p.m., the accused along with a juvenile offender-accused Imraan were abusing the complainant by standing outside his house. When the complainant came out and asked them why they were abusing him, the accused no.2 stated that the complainant was defaming them. He started assaulting the complainant with fists. Accused no.1 assaulted the complainant on his head by an iron rod and the accused no.3 assaulted him with a cricket bat causing injury to his right leg. The complainant went to the police station. The police sent him to Shivaji Hospital for treatment. The statement of the complainant was recorded in the hospital. 5. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and his wife who is an eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Other eye witnesses were also examined. Pancha witness, medical - 3 - officer and the investigating officer were also examined. 6. After carefully considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accusations were proved. He however held that the hurt caused to the complainant was not grievous hurt and therefore he did not convict the accused under section 326 of the I.P.C. but convicted them under section 325 of the I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappreciation of the evidence, found that the prosecution case was believable and was rightly believed by the learned Magistrate and therefore confirmed the order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge however felt that the sentence of 2 years imposed by the learned Magistrate was too severe and reduced the sentence from R.I. of 2 years to R.I. of 1 year. This decision of the learned Sessions Judge is impugned in this revision application. 7. I have perused the evidence adduced in the matter. The complainant has narrated the incident in his deposition. He has stated that the accused, who resided near his house, came to him and started abusing him. Accused no.2 - Roshan stated that the complainant was defaming them. Accused no.1 Yusuf assaulted the - 4 - complainant’s wife with an iron rod and when the complainant tried to rescue her, the accused no.2 and accused no.3 assaulted the complainant with fist blows and kick blows. Accused no.1 - Yusuf then assaulted the complainant on his head and face. He also assaulted the complainant on the forehead. Accused no.3 - Taha assaulted the complainant by means of a cricket bat. The complainant felt giddy and fell unconscious. Neighbours came on the spot and sprinkled some water on the face of the complainant who was then taken to the police station in an auto-rickshaw. Police took him to the Shivaji Hospital for medical treatment where he was admitted and his statement was recorded. The evidence of the complainant is not shattered in the cross examination. The prosecution also examined Parveen, wife of the complainant, who corroborated him and the neighbours Mohini, Iqbal Hussain and Jamuna were also examined as P.W. Nos.3, 4 and 5. They all have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. 8. In view of the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the revision applicants did not seriously dispute the correctness of the conviction. He however submitted that the sentence of one year is too severe. In particular, he submitted that the applicants have been acquitted of the charge under section 326 of the I.P.C. There was no intention to cause grievous hurt as - 5 - can be seen that the assault was with fist blows and cricket bat. In the circumstances, the imprisonment of one year may be reduced and the amount of fine may be increased. Learned counsel for the revision applicants referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, reported in Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, reported in Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 AIR 1988 SC 2127 AIR 1988 SC 2127, and submitted that under section 357 of the Cr.P.C., the court can give compensation to the victim and reduce the sentence. 9. In the present case, it appears that fight was not pre-meditated. The accused were under impression that the complainant was defaming them in connection with non-payment of electricity bill. The complainant in his examination-in-chief has stated that the accused came to his house and started abusing him; when the complainant asked the accused why they were abusing, the accused no.2 Roshan asked why the complainant was defaming them on the ground of non-payment of the electricity bill and why they were stating these facts to the neighbours. It thus appears that the accused had a feeling that the complainant was defaming them and appeared to have come to his house with a view to prevent further defamation. 10. Taking these facts into consideration, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by reducing - 6 - the sentence of R.I. of 1 year to 6 months and enhance the fine. The complainant had suffered injuries and was admitted to the hospital. He must have suffered physical pain as well as mental agony. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to increase the fine to Rs.25,000/-. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER Conviction of the revision applicants under section 325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. The sentence of R.I. of 1 year awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is however modified and the revision applicants are sentenced to suffer R.I. of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. Fine, if paid, shall be given to the complainant as compensation. Rule is partly made absolute to the extent above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)