Rangnath Prataprao Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 April, 2006

Bombay High Court
Rangnath Prataprao Jadhav vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006 CriLJ 3438
Author: S Kukday
Bench: S Kukday


S.P. Kukday, J.

1. The petitioner has impugned the order of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hingoli in Regular Criminal Case No. 116/1991, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default, S.I. for fifteen days and the order of the Appellate Court, confirming the order of conviction and sentence so far as the petitioner was concerned passed on 6-5-1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1993.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that complainant Madhukar Manjramkar is staying in Risala Bazar at Hingoli with his son and other members of the family. On 3-3-1991 at about 7.00 p.m., there was a quarrel between son of complainant namely Deepak (PW-4) and the petitioner, during which, petitioner took bite on the shoulder of Deepak. Deepak then lodged a complaint against the petitioner. After completing the formalities in respect of this complaint, complainant and Deepak returned to their house. Soon after that at about 8.30 p.m., petitioner along with three others, entered complainant’s house and sought an explanation as to why the complaint was lodged against him with the police. During the course of the quarrel, petitioner assaulted the complainant by dealing stick blow on his back on left ribs, on head and toe. His brother-in-law Chandramuni (PW-5) came to rescue the complainant on hearing the noise, Petitioner assaulted Chandramuni also causing injuries to him. During the course of the quarrel, (PW-2) Ambhore and (PW-3) Prof. Telmore, who are the neighbours, came to the scene of occurrence and stopped the quarrel, A complaint was then lodged and investigated. After completion of the investigation, petitioner and three others came to be charge sheeted.

3. At the conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge found that the guilt of petitioner and other accused is established. He, therefore, convicted them for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, simple imprisonment for fifteen days. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 300/ was ordered to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The order of conviction and sentence dated 22-6-1993 passed by learned Magistrate was impugned in the appeal filed in the court of Sessions Judge, Hingoli. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 9/1993 by order dated 6-5-1998. Learned Appellate Court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed on other accused, but confirmed the conviction and sentence so far as petitioner is concerned. These orders are impugned in the present revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that appreciation of evidence by learned Trial Judge as well as Appellate Judge is not proper. The evidence of complainant, his son Chandramuni has not received corroboration from the evidence of PW-2 and the medical evidence. Therefore, no reliance should have been placed on the testimony of interested witnesses. Learned Counsel has referred to the evidence of Prabhu Ambhore (PW-2) to point out that he does not make reference to the quarrel. According to this witness, he had come after the incident was over, However, learned A.P.P. has rightly pointed out that (PW-3) Prof. Telmore is also an independent witness and has testified that though he has not witnessed initial phase of the assault, on hearing commotion, he came down and found that the quarrel was in progress inside the house of complainant. The petitioner was armed with stick and was assaulting the complainant. Other accused assaulted Chandramuni Mhaske with sticks, (PW-3 Prof. Telmore also has testified to the Injuries sustained by the complainant, and Chandramuni. In fact, he is the person who stopped the quarrel. It is, therefore, apparent that the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that evidence of complainant, Chandramuni and Deepak is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, cannot be sustained. The trial Judge as well as Appellate Court have referred to the medical certificate (Exh, 36) and the evidence of (PW-7) Dr. Galande. Medical evidence shows that the complainant had sustained injuries on chest, temporal region and on the left foot. The injury certificate substantiates evidence of complainant, thus the contention that medical evidence does not substantiate the evidence on record cannot be accepted. The examination of evidence on record shows that the findings recorded by learned Trial Judge and by learned Appellate Judge are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. Learned Appellate Judge has given benefit to other accused, who were with the petitioner, on the basis of admission of complainant that they had not participated in the assault. This finding recorded by the Appellate Judge has not been challenged. Evidence on record Justifies the view taken by learned Appellate Judge, In the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, a revisional court is not expected to disturb the findings of facts, if they are based on proper appreciation of evidence even if two views are possible. In the present case, both the courts below have arrived at the correct conclusions on the basis of proper analysis of the evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the courts below, therefore, cannot be condemned as perverse. No other illegality is noticed or pointed out. No case for interference is made out. The petition, therefore, falls.

6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that benefit of Section 360 of Cr. P.C. should be given to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has lost his Job and has suffered agony of litigation for more than 13 years. It can be seen that the prosecution cannot be blamed for protraction of the litigation. The petitioner had availed the remedies available to him and the time is spent for prosecuting the cause. Thus, the petitioner cannot make a grievance regarding the time consumed for decision of the cause. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that benefit of Section 360 should be given to the petitioner. The contention cannot be sustained as Section 360 of Cr. P.C. is not applicable to the areas where Probation of Offenders Act is made applicable. In the present case, deterrent theory of punishment is to be applied having regard to the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it is committed. Both the courts below have ruled out application of reformative theory of punishment. The deterrent theory is applied not merely to punish the offender, but to deter others similarly situated from committing the similar offences. In this view of the matter, it will not be proper to apply reformative theory at this stage of the proceeding. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained.

As no case for interference is made out, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner shall surrender to ball before the lower court on or before 21-4-2006 for serving remaining portion of the sentence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *