1 (crim rev. appln 127 of 2001) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2001 1. Shri Rajaram Dada Tikule ) Age 27 years, Occup.Agriculturist ) 2. Shri Dada Bhau Tikule ) Age 60 years, Occup.Agriculturist ) 3. Shri Sopan Khandu Tikule ) Age 40 years, Occup. Agriculturist ) All residents of Dharampuri, ) Tal. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur ) (At present at Pandharpur Sub-Jail, ) Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur) )..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra ) (Copy to be served on A.P.P., ) High Court, A.S. Bombay) )..Respondent ----- Mr.K.B. Sohwalkar for Petitioners Mrs. M.R. Tidake -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 O R A L J U D G M E N T 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP for the state. 2 (crim rev. appln 127 of 2001) 2. The Petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C., who was pleased to convict the Petitioners for the offence punishable under section 325 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and, in default, to suffer further S.I. for one month. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for three moths and to pay fine of Rs.250/- and, in default, to suffer further S.I. for 15 days. The Petitioners were also convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and, in default to suffer further S.I. for 10 days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Against this order, they preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1997. 3 (crim rev. appln 127 of 2001) The Appeal filed by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 was dismissed and the Petitioner No.2’s appeal was partly allowed and his sentence was modified and he was sentenced to suffer S.I. for 2 days and to pay fine of Rs.500/- on each count. The Petitioner No.2 also was given set off for the period he was in jail. 4. I have with the assistance of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate and also the Sessions Court. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. In my view, there is sufficient material on record to prove the charges which were levelled against the Petitioners. So far as the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses. Statements of the eye witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence and PW- 1 Sudhir Dhumal, who is the Medical Officer attached to the Civil Hospital has mentioned the injuries which were found on the injured person. In view of this, evidence which is on record, there is no infirmity in 4 (crim rev. appln 127 of 2001) the order passed by both the Courts below. So far as the order of conviction is concerned, the order of conviction is, therefore, confirmed. 5. On the point of sentence, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 have undergone one month of sentence. So far as the Petitioner No.2 is concerned, his sentence was altered to two days by the Sessions Court in appeal. He has already undergone the said sentence. 6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, this is a fit case where the sentence awarded by both the Courts below is reduced from six months to the period which they have already undergone. 7. Hence, Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The order of conviction is confirmed. However, the sentence is reduced from six months to the period of which the Petitioners have already 5 (crim rev. appln 127 of 2001) undergone. 8. The Petitioners are on bail during the trial. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. (V.M. KANADE J.)