1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2010 1. Shantaram s/o Chindhu Gangurde, Aged 60 years, Occupation Agriculture, 2. Haridas s/oShantaram Gangurde, Aged 29 years, Occupation Agriculture, Both resident of Deogaon Gavanepada, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule Applicants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the appellants 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 Judgments of the Courts below convicting the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants are father and son. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 16th January, 2006, at about 10.00 am, when the complainant came to record the electric meter reading in their house, they assaulted him with fists and kicks. The complainant was not alone when the incident took place. His nephew Vijay was with him, who also witnessed the incident, and when he tried to intervene, he was also beaten up. The Medical Officer found as many as three injuries on the face of the complainant. The report of the incident was also lodged very quickly. It is proved beyond 2 reasonable doubt that the complainant was representing the Electricity Supply Company, and thus, was a public servant. Both the Courts below found that the evidence of the prosecution was trustworthy and the offences mentioned above are proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, awarded harsh sentence in the form of rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. However, at the appellate stage, the learned Judge rightly reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. While reducing the sentence, he has given cogent reasons. The reduction of the sentence was also quite substantial. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants suggested that the reduction in the substantive sentence was not sufficient and deserves to be reduced further. He pointed out that the applicants are villagers having no criminal record, and, at the spur of the moment, the incident might have taken place. He said that the applicants being rustic villagers, probably lacked civility while dealing with the awkward situation, and they jumped to violence, and so, further leniency should be shown to them. I am afraid, although the submissions are attractive, I am not inclined to use further discretion to reduce the substantive sentence. As said above, the learned Judge of the appeal Court recording cogent reasons reduced the substantive sentence quite substantially. He reduced it from six months rigorous imprisonment to one month rigorous imprisonment. Besides, one must not forget that the act committed by the applicants was serious. They assaulted an outsider, a representative of a Company, which supplies electricity to them. The complainant was doing his duty, and while discharging such duty, he could not have been obstructed. He had come to house of the applicant at an appropriate time, and they had apparently no reason to assault him. I, with the help of Shri. Patil, the learned Advocate appearing for 3 the applicants, perused the evidence also. I tried to find out whether the case of one applicant can be separated from the other, and, whether one of them can be given benefit of doubt. However, I found that the evidence was quite strong against both the applicants. So, there is no scope to interfere in the Judgments and orders impugned. The revision should therefore fail. The revision stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/cra/216/10