1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.195 of 1999 Bhagwat @ Uttam S/o.Shripati Khandagale, Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Kamkheda, Tal.Renapur, Dist. Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Baliram S/o. Dhondiba Pawar, Age-26 years, Occu-Business, 2. Mahadeo S/o.Dhondiba Pawar, Age-24 years, Occu-Business, 3. Dattatraya S/o.Dhondiba Pawar, Age-21 years, Occu-Education, 4. Jagannath S/o.Dhondiba Pawar, Age-32 years, Occu-Agriculturist, All R/o.Kamkheda, Tq.Renapur, Dist. Latur, 5. The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENTS Mr.R.K.Ashtekar, learned counsel for applicant. (Absent) Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent no.1 None present for remaining respondents even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 17/11/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 2 1. The present criminal revision application is preferred by the original complainant against the order passed by the Extra Joint Sessions Judge, Latur in Special Case No.17/1997 wherein the respondent no.1 to 4 accused were tried for an offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) with section 7(i)(d) of P.C.R. Act and u/s. 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. By the aforesaid judgment dated 17/03/1999, the learned Extra Joint Civil Judge, pleased to acquit the accused for the offence under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act,), for an offence punishable u/s.7(i) (d) of The P.C.R. Act and for an offence punishable u/s. 324, r/w section 34 of the IPC, but they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer RI for 2 months. This judgment is assailed in the present revision. 2. Record and proceeding shows that rule was issued in the present revision on 21/07/1999. The record and proceeding was called and the notice of final hearing was issued to the respondents. 3. It appears that inspite of notice, only respondent no.1 appeared, but respondent no.2 to 4 failed to appear inspite of due notice. It further appears that advocate Shri.Ashtekar was appointed in this revision application to represent the applicant, but he also remain absent when the revision application was called out for final hearing. 4. Considering the gravity of the matter by which even though the offence stands proved against the applicant, but the punishment which was awarded to respondent no.1 to 4 for an offence punishable u/s. 324 3 r/w. 34 of The IPC, in the interest of justice suo-moto perused the judgment impugned in the present revision application with the assistance of learned APP appearing for 5th respondent. 5. Considering the limited scope in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court as u/s. 401 of The IPC, examine the judgment and order impugned in this revision application to the extent whether the sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the offence held stands proved against respondent no.1 to 4 is proper or not. 6. In his judgment, the learned Special Judge while recording finding on point no.3 and 4, it is observed that these accused have used deadly weapons to assault the complainant and his brother. It is further held that the injuries sustained by the complainant and his brother were caused to them because of the assault at the hands of these respondents. It is also held in recording the finding on these points that these accused individually as well as infurtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to complainant and his brother by means of deadly weapons. If the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that offence stands proved then the Trial Court has to record the reasons while awarding the punishment to the respondents accused as to why the minimum punishment was awarded or why the punishment less than minimum punishment was awarded. U/s. 324 of The IPC, the punishment is provided which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both. It is recorded in para no.36 of the judgment that considering the age of these accused and the liability lies on them, the minimum punishment is provided to them and i.e. to the tune of Rs.300/- only. 4 Considering the seriousness of the matter, this punishment awarded by the Trial Court is not a proper punishment. In the premise, the matter required to be remanded to the Trial Court to hear the parties again on the point of quantum of punishment and then to decide what punishment to be awarded to respondent no.1 to 4. In the premise, following is the order : O R D E R 1. This criminal revision application is hereby partly allowed. 2. Special Case No.17/1997 is hereby remitted back to the Trial Court with direction to re-hear learned APP and the accused on the point of quantum of punishment, and then to pass the order of conviction. 3. The respondent no.1 to 4 are hereby directed to appear before the Special Court, Latur within the period of 6 weeks, but on or before 15/12/2009. In case the respondent no.1 to 4 will not appear before the Special Court, Latur within the stipulated period, then the Special Court, Latur to issue BW/NBW against these respondents to secure their appearance. 4. Registry to forward the copy of this judgment to the Special Court, Latur for its implementation and execution. 5. Rule made absolute in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.rev.appl.195-99