1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.24/2009.

Gangadhar s/o Keshavrao Jadhav

- APPLICANT

VERSUS

1)

Rajesh s/o Subhashrao Bobde

and others.

- RESPONDENTS

*****

Mr.D.A.Karnik, Adv. h/for Mr.Vivek Dhage,

Advocate for Applicant;

Mr.S.J.Salunke, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

Mr.V.G.Godbharale, APP for State.

-----

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

DATE : 8TH October,2009.

PER COURT :

1)

Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, by

consent of parties the matter is finally heard at

admission stage.

2)

On 6.4.2004 at around 11.00 a.m., the

complainant – Gangadhar Keshavrao Jadhav was

proceeding to Bus stand of Mardasgaon from

village Gopa. The accused nos. 1 and 2 followed

him. Accused no.1 – Rajesh asked the complainant

as to why he was teasing his sister. Accused no.

2

2 – Suryakant caught hands of the complainant

while accused no.1 – Rajesh assaulted the

complainant by `Velu’ stick at left hand, wrist,

back, chest, waist, left thigh and right elbow.

The length of the Velu stick was found to be 3

to 3 ½ ft. The accused also allegedly abused the

complainant. The matter was prosecuted against

the accused.

3)

The learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, on analysis of evidence of the complainant

– Gangadhar, P.W.2 – Shivaji; P.W.4 – Ganesh

found that it was the accused no.2 – Suryakant,

who caught hold hands of the complainant, while

accused no.1 – Rajesh assaulted him by Velu

stick. The learned Judge recorded corroboration

to the statement by F.I.R., Exh. 14. The medical

evidence proved through P.W.6 – Dr.Chate and P.W.

9 Dr. Joshi, is also corroborating to the

narration of the complainant. The recovery

panchanama at Exhibit-23 was established. The

nature of injuries suffered by the complainant

are recorded by the learned Judge as also by the

Appellate Court in their Judgments. The

injuries are contusion, caused by hard and blunt

object within 24 hours. The injuries were

possible by means of Velu stick. X-ray was

drawn. There was fracture of stayliod of right

ulna, which was a grievous injury caused within

3

72 hours by hard and blunt object. The learned

JMFC, at Gangakhed, on the basis of analysis of

evidence, by his judgment dated 21.2.2008,

convicted the accused no.1 – Rajesh for an

offence under Section 325 of IPC and directed to

undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-, while accused no.2 – Suryakant was

convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 325 of IPC and directed to undergo R.I.

for three months with fine of Rs.500/-.

4)

The accused challenged the conviction

before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at

Gangakhed in Criminal Appeal No.3/2008. The

learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order

dated 31.12.2008, recording the findings,

confirmed the order of the trial Court holding

the accused guilty under Sections 325 r/w 34 of

IPC in paragraph 9 of the Judgment.

5)

The so-called renegation part flows from

paragraph 10 of the Judgment of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, which is crucial in

its nature and consequently reproduced in

verbatim.

“10. So far as quantum of sentence is

concerned, it is contended that the

accused are young persons. There is

no previous conviction. They are not

criminal therefore whatever sentence

granted by the trial court is

4

excessive liable to be interfered.

I do accepted that this argument

that accused are not criminal and

the sentence awarded by trial court

is excessive particularly in case of

persons those were not having any

enmity

previously

with

the

complainant. It seems that they

were annoyed upon the complainant

because they were suspecting that he

is keeping bad eyes upon their

sister. But it is n