Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
Sambha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Application Nos. 75 of 2002 & 158 of 2002
Decided on: 06-02-2015
For the Petitioners:M.V. Deshpande, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.A. Ambad, A.P.P, G.J. Karne, h/f D.R. Shelke, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the specific requirements for conviction under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the application of Section 326 in relation to the use of dangerous weapons or means.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Assault - Section 148, Section 149, Section 323, Section 325, Section 326 - The court discussed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also highlighted the application of Section 149 and the specific requirements for conviction under this section.
Fact of the Case:
The first informant and the accused persons were involved in a dispute over Babhul trees in their agricultural fields. The accused persons were convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, and the present case revolved around the injuries suffered by the first informant and the involvement of the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that only one of the accused persons was responsible for the assault on the first informant, and the other accused persons were acquitted. The court also confirmed the conviction of one applicant for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the other applicants for the same offence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility of all accused persons for the injury suffered by the first informant and the justification for the acquittal of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that only one accused person was responsible for the assault on the first informant and acquitted the other accused persons. The court also agreed with the lower appellate court's reasoning for acquitting the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2002, confirmed the conviction of one applicant, directed the trial court to secure the presence of the convicted applicant, and acquitted the other applicants. Criminal Revision Application No. 158 of 2002 was dismissed.
1. The applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2002 were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded on 19.3.1999 in Regular Criminal Case No. 734 of 1995.
They were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for seven days.
The applicants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count they were sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the applicants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1995 in the court of the learned Sessions Judge at Nanded. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, though dismissed the appeal, modified the order of conviction. Instead of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 326 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, all the applicants were found to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 325 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The applicants were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Against their conviction under Section 325 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, the present applicants have preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 75 of 2002.
3. Since, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, the first informant filed a Revision to this court bearing Criminal Revision Application No. 158 of 2002 and prayed for restoration of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court. Since both the Revisions arise from one and the same proceedings, both the Revisions are heard simultaneously and same are decided by this common judgment.
4. I have heard Shri M.V.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicants/original accused nos. 1 to 5, Shri S.A.Ambad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State and Shri G.J.Karne, learned counsel for respondent/first informant in extenso. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings.
5. The first informant Mahadu and the accused persons (hereinafter will be referred by their position in the trial court) are cousins is an admitted fact. Accordingly, agricultural field of the first informant and the agricultural field of accused Sambha are adjacent to each other is also an admitted position.
6. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:
On 25.4.1995, first informant Mahadu lodged a first information report with police station Mudkhed (Exh.35). The said was recorded as Crime No. 53 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
The first information report states that first informant is having his agricultural land at Amdura, which admeasures 8 acres. In the agricultural field Babhul tress are standing. Adjacent to his agricultural field, field of accused Sambha is situated. There is a long standing dispute between him and Sambha on account of Babhul trees.
First information report further proceeds that on 25.4.1995 at 3.00 p.m. first informant went to his field to cut Babhul trees and at that time when he was keeping those cut wood in the bullock cart, that tim
