1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 187 of 2009 Dhanraj Shrikrishna Jamode, Aged about 36 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Telhara Police Station, Telhara, District-Akola. .. APPLICANT .. Versus .. The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station Officer, Telhara, Tahsil-Telhara, District-Akola .. NON-APPLICANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.B. Mirza, Advocate for applicant, Mrs. R.A. Wasnik, APP for non-applicant/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED :- 23 rd NOVEMBER, 2009 P. C. 1. This application is filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 6th July, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Criminal Appeal No.3/2007 and the judgment dated 2nd January, 2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara in Criminal Case No.149/05 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 2 The police has chargesheeted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged accident dated 11-11-2005. It was alleged that on 11-11-2005 at about 9.00 a.m. the complainant / Haribhau Jairam Mamankar was grazing his buffaloes in the field of one Gulabrao, mean while the applicant/accused came there and asked the complainant as to why he has filed appeal against him and started abusing the complainant on this count. The applicant/accused then assaulted to the complainant and thrown the hand of complainant on the stationary of the bullock-cart due to which the complainant sustained injuries on his hand. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the applicant/accused on 28-2-2006 for committing offence under Sections 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On 2-1-2009 the trial Court convicted the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500 (Rupees Five Hundred Only) and in default of payment of fine accused shall undergo R.I. for one month . 3 4. The applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.3/2007 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Akot against the judgment dated 2-1-2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the Courts below failed to consider that the complainant in his evidence stated that P.W.2 Dinkar intervened in the matter and on the contrary the P.W.2 Dinkar admitted in his cross-examination that he along with Pralhad intervened in the matter and P.W.1 did not state about the appearance of P.W. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that the appellate Court held that the evidence of the complainant is corroborated by the P.W.2, however same fact is contrary to the record. It is further submitted that there are contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses 1,2,3. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant further 4 submitted that P.W.4 spot panch witness, who himself admitted in cross-examination that the police first asked him to sign the panchanama and then they read the entire panchanama to P.W. 4, it means panchanama had already been prepared by police. The learned Advocate for the applicant further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the application and submitted that this application deserves to be allowed. 7. I have carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and also documents on record made available by the parties. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akot actually who heard the appeal has appreciated the evidence and has recorded in Paragraph 9 that ‘the accused smashed hand of the complainant against a stationary bullock-cart and due to this act of the accused, the complainant sustained fracture to his right hand little finger.’ It is further observed that ‘the Medical Officer pointed out that the injury would take four to five day to heal.’ Therefore, the Sessions Court observed and has recorded the findings the initial ingredient that the accused caused bodily pain to the complainant is duly proved. 8. In Paragraph 11 the appellate Court has recorded that the 5 evidence of complainant is corroborated by P.W.2 Dinkar Thombre. P.W.2 deposed that he observed at the material time the complainant and the accused were quarreling with each other. In Paragraph 16 the appellate Court has observed that ‘the accused has not even come out with a case that the complainant sustained injury in the scuffle and that it was an involuntary injury.’ Taking over all view of the matter and appreciation of the evidence, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the offence in question had taken place and injury is sustained by the complainant due to aggression by the applicant/accused. 9. The appellate Court taking lenient view has set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). 10. Therefore, on careful scrutiny of the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below as well as other documents placed on record, it clearly appears that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence brought on record. There is evidence 6 of P.W.2 which corroborates the version of the complainant. There is also injury sustained to the complainant and medical report favours the prosecution. Viewed from any angle no case is made out for interference, hence there is no substance in the criminal revision application, same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Misc. Criminal Applications, if any, stands disposed of due to decision of the Criminal Revision Application No.187 of 2009. JUDGE adgokar