1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2000 1. Shaikh Pasha Miya Niyaz Mohd, Aged 29 years, Occupation Agriculture, 2. Niyaz Mohd. s/o Yasin Shaikh, Aged 60 years, Occupation Agriculture, Both resident of Kakyal, Taluka Chakur, District Latur Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. T.S. Lodhe, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 27th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Both of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default clause. The applicants were original accused Nos. 1 and 7 in Regular Criminal Case No. 25 of 1993. Initially, the applicants and other accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident took place on 20th December, 1992, at about 03.00 p.m., in the agricultural field of the complainant. It is alleged that the applicants and other accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked on the complainant causing him bleeding injuries. After the 2 trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, came to a conclusion that the applicants and other accused were guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, on each count with a default clause. The learned Magistrate, however, released other accused except the present applicants on executing bond under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. The convicted accused including the present applicants preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Latur (Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1996). The learned Sessions Judge after perusing the entire evidence on record including the defence raised by the applicants, came to a conclusion that the prosecution had duly proved the charge for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the present applicants only. The charge under Section 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, it is held, was not duly proved. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused of all the offences, and ultimately, convicted the present applicants under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge also had regard to the seriousness of the injuries caused to the complainant and the prosecution witnesses. He pointed out that the applicants caused injuries to the complainant and two more persons. One of the prosecution witnesses was a woman, who had sustained fracture injury, which according to the learned Sessions Judge, was serious in nature. The learned Sessions Judge also drew a conclusion that the applicants here were quite merciless while they assaulted the prosecution witnesses and others. In view of this, the applicants stood convicted under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- 3 each with a default clause. I find nothing illegal in the order and so the revision should therefore fail. The revision stands dismissed. Issue arrest warrant against the applicants. In view of the fact that the applicants and their Advocate are absent before the Court, arrest warrant is issued against the applicants. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/cra/7/2000/27810