IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2000 Rajendra Khandu Patil | ... Petitioner/Applicant. Age-28 Occ. Student, R/at Indarjeet Mala, (Org. Complainant) Malegaon, Tal. Malegaon,Dist. Nasik. | V/s. 1. State of Maharashtra, (Through Senior P.I.,Chharni Police Station, Malegaon) 2. Pandurang Keshav Mohite, | ... Respondents. Age 69 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist, (Respt. No.2-Orig.Accused) R/o. Indarjeet Mala, Malegaon Tal. Maleaon, Dist. Nasik. | ----- Mr. Umesh V. Nikam for the Petitioner/Applicant- Absent. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State. Mr. Arun Joshi h/f. P.N. Joshi for the Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATED : JUNE 15, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. None for the revision petitioner/applicant, though the application was kept back on two occasions. 2 2. On the basis of F.I.R. lodged by the revision applicant, at the instance of the State, the second respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order dated 1st January, 2000 the second respondent was convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-. This revision application has been preferred by the original complainant, praying that the second respondent may be convicted for the offence punishable under section 325 of the IPC and/ or praying for enhancement of sentence of the 2nd respondent. 3. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the medical officer was not examined to prove injury certificate. The learned Judge observed that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove alleged injury caused to Chandrabhagabai. The learned Judge observed that from the evidence on record it was established that the second respondent gave fist blow on the nose of Chandrabhagabai and he had lifted and thrown the injured Khandu Sonu on the ground. The learned Judge observed that as injury certificate of Khandu Sonu was not produced, the case will fall under 3 section 323 and not under section 325 of the IPC. 4. In the circumstances, the learned Judge was justified in not convicting the second respondent for the offence under section 325 of the I.P.Code. The incident is of 30th August, 1993. Therefore, in the year 2009 no case is made out for the enhancement of the sentence. 5. There is no merit in the revision application and the same is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA,J.) .....