1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 91/2010 Sanjay s/o Abhimanyyu Parode, Age : 45 years, Occu. Labour, R/o Keliveli, Tq. Akot Dist. Akola. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for applicant. (appointed as amicus curie). Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.P.P. for respondent / State. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 14th September, 2010. ORAL ORDER:- 1. This revision application is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 176/2008. The applicant was the appellant before the lower appellate Court. He had challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned 13th Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad in S.C.C. No. 9125/2004, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause. 2 2 It is the prosecution case that the applicant was undergoing life imprisonment and on 18/04/2004 he was serving his sentence at Aurangabad Central Jail. On that day, while he was taken out of the jail for the purpose of gardening work, he vanished. The matter was reported to Police and the police registered an offence against the applicant. Ultimately, the applicant was found languishing in some other jail for committing some other offence. The Courts below having regard to the prosecution evidence, held that the case was proved against the applicant. The learned advocate appearing for the applicant raised two points. First; that the defence of the applicant that he was not the same person who had broken the jail on 18/04/2004, has not been examined properly. He pointed out that the prosecution witnesses, while deposing, have not given marks of identification of the absconded accused for matching them with the applicant. He therefore, suggested that it could be a case of wrong identification. I am not accepting this argument because the prosecution witnesses were knowing the applicant before he went missing from the jail on 18/04/2010. He was brought to Aurangabad Central Jail in January, 2004 and so the prosecution witnesses had ample opportunity to get to know him and when they identified him in the Court as the same person, there was no question of error in their identification. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant then asserted that one of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the applicant should be able to get advantage of the same. I am afraid, this submission would also not help the applicant because the other witness; prosecution witness No.1 Narayan clearly mentioned that the 3 applicant was in his custody when he was taken out of the jail for gardening work. He said that the applicant on the pretext of answering nature’s call, went away from his sight and then he did not come back. This evidence is sufficient to rebut above mentioned submission. Having gone through judgments of both the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere in the judgments and orders passed by Courts below. The revision shall fail. ORDER The revision application stands dismissed. Mr. Mukhedkar learned Advocate appearing for the applicant who was appointed as amicus curiae for conducting this case, shall be paid Rs.2,000/- towards his fees. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) ts k/