1
//REPORTABLE//
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2009.
Date of decision : 2nd MARCH, 2009.
For approval and signature.
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers }
may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see
the fair copy of the judgment? } No.
4. Whether this case involves a substantial }
question of law as to the interpretation }
of the Constitution of India, 1950 or }
any Order made thereunder? } No.
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the }
Civil Judges? } No.
6. Whether the case involves an important }
question of law and whether a copy of }
the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, }
Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No.
[Prakash Kadam]
Private Secretary to
the Honourable Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2009.
Ravi s/o Santoshkumar Shukla,
age 31 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Jingar Galli, Hingoli,
Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. .... APPLICANT.
( Ori. Accused ).
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra. .... RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENTS
...
Shri V.P. Latange, Advocate for applicant.
Shri J.S. Gavane, A.P.P. for State.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2009.
Date of reserving
the Judgment. : 24.02.2009.
Date of pronouncing
the Judgment. : 02.03.2009.
JUDGMENT:
1. This revision application is filed
challenging the final judgment and order passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Criminal
Appeal No.7/2005 dated 10th February, 2009 by
which the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli confirmed
the judgment and order of conviction dated 8th
February, 2005 passed in R.C.C. No.332/2000 by
the J.M.F.C., Hingoli.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
2
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith
and heard finally.
3. That the complainant Mugaji Namaji Narode
filed complaint on 4.4.1996 alleging that when he
was supervising in examination hall no.4 at
Bhartiya Vidyamandir, Hingoli and one Prakash
Ambhore was supervising in the hall No.5, Prakash
Ambhore called the complainant and told that one
student Shukla was copying in the said examination
hall from
answer sheet of another student. At
that time the Mr. Ambhore warned the said student
not to copy. At that time the student ran away
alongwith question and answer sheet, that time he
told to the student that he knows his parents and
he will give understanding to them. Thereafter,
the concerned supervisor went to do his work in
hall no.5. Then, at about 9.20 a.m. the said
student Shukla along with his brother came towards
hall no.5, at that time, the concerned supervisor
was standing near the door of hall no.4. The
brother of the said student Shukla came towards
Prakash Ambhore and assaulted him by means of hand
blows. Therefore, the complainant tried to
intervene in the said quarrel, but brother of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
3
student caught hold his collar and pressed his
neck. Thereafter, he brought the said student and
his brother towards office of the Head Master.
Thereafter his brother and father came in the
office of Head Master. At that time brother of
student Shukla caught hold his collar and pressed
his neck and father of said student Shukla gave
hand blow on his nose. Blood started oozing from
his nose. Then second brother of Shukla also
assaulted him by means of slaps and abused him in
filthy language on his caste. At that time they
also
threatened to kill him. One Sheshrao Kadam,
Anand Puri, Prakash Ambhore, Maroti Thorat,
Dadarao Mhaske and Chagan Bansode and other
teachers intervened said quarrel. Thereafter, he
went towards Hingoli town police Station and
lodged the complaint against accused. Police
registered Crime No.54/1996 for offences
punishable under Sections 353, 448, 324, 504, 506
r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. Further investigation was
carried. During the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer visited the spot. He
prepared panchanama of the spot, recorded
statements of witnesses and after completion of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
4
investigation, filed charge-sheet for the
aforesaid offences. One accused Amar was juvenile
and his trial was separated. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Parbhani and
thereafter it was transferred to Addl. Sessions
Court at Hingoli.
4. In view of the order passed below Exh.1 by
the Sessions Judge, accused persons were charged
for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act and the matter was transferred to
C.J.M., Parbhani for trial against accused persons
in respect of remaining charges.
5. J.M.F.C. framed charges against the
accused nos.1 and 2 below Exh.12 for offence
punishable under Sections 353, 448, 323, 324, 504
and 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The J.M.F.C. framed
necessary points for its determination and
recorded the findings. In paragraphs 7 to 14 the
J.M.F.C. has discussed the evidence of the
witnesses and in para 15 the court has recorded
findings.
6. The J.M.F.C. after scanning the evidence
of prosecution came to the conclusion that the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
5
complainant Mugaji Narwade was working as teacher
in the said school and at that time, examination
of 8th and 9th standard was going on. The
testimony of the complainant appeared to be
consistent with the complaint below Exh.23. The
Magistrate has further discussed about the
evidence of other witnesses and came to the
conclusion that the testimony of the witnesses
corroborates the version of each other. The
J.M.F.C. has recorded findings that the
prosecution proved that accused nos.1 and 2, in
furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily
caused hurt to the complainant and intentionally
committed trespass by entering the school building
with an intention to commit offence. The J.M.F.C.
convicted the accused and directed to suffer
sentence of S.I. for six months and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for 15
days.
7. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli has
partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused
persons. The order passed by the J.M.F.C. was
modified in respect of Santoshkumar s/o Sidhanath
Shukla only and sentence of imprisonment was
reduced but, his sentence of fine was confirmed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
6
So far as present applicant is concerned, the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli dismissed his
appeal by confirming the sentence imposed by the
J.M.F.C.
8. The learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the Head Master of the said school
is not examined. The evidence of the prosecution
witnesses is not consistent with each other, the
witnesses have not stated the time of the
incident. The complainant was not the supervisor
on
the said hall in which the student was giving
examination. He further submitted that there is
material variance in the version of the three
witnesses. Therefore, the learned Counsel
submitted that both the courts have committed
error in convicting the applicant. It is further
submitted that the place of the incident also
differ from the statement of three witnesses, the
prosecution has not examined the Chief Invigilator
of the examination and the prosecution has not
brought any evidence on record to show that the
concerned supervisor was assigned duty on hall
no.5 at the relevant time. According to the
learned Counsel, material ingredients of section
353 are not fulfilled. It is further submitted
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
7
that both the courts are not correct in awarding
the sentence under Section 448 of I.P.C.
According to him, the parents of the students have
every right to enter in the premises of the school
to verify the complaint made by their son. He
further submitted that the version of Prakash
Ambhore is not corroborated by medical evidence.
Both the courts below have treated him as an
injured eye witness but, no medical certificate
was produced to show that he had received an
injury. Therefore, it is submitted that the
applicant deserves
ig to be acquitted of all the
charges.
9. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to
the findings recorded by the learned J.M.F.C. as
well as the revisional Court and submitted that
the evidence brought on record by the prosecution
is overwhelming and fully supports the prosecution
case. There are concurrent findings recorded by
the courts below after appreciation of the
evidnece and therefore, this court may not
interfere in the well reasoned judgment and order
passed by both the courts below.
10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
8
applicant, the learned A.P.P. for State and
perused the entire compilation including the
application, judgments of the courts below and I
am of the considered view that the offence in
question is very serious in nature and the
J.M.F.C. has recorded findings based upon cogent
and consistent evidence of the eye witnesses. The
evidence of P.Ws. 6 to 9 fully supports the case
of the prosecution.
11. The evidence of P.W.1 Mugaji Narwade below
exh.22 shows
that on 4.4.96 he was working as
teacher in the said school. He was on duty in
examination hall no.4 adjacent to hall no.5. At
about 9 a.m. he supplied answer sheets and
question papers to the students. One Prakash
Ambhore was examiner in hall no.5. The evidence
of complainant and Prakash Ambhore who was
examiner in hall no.5 corroborates with each
other. The evidence of P.W.6 Prakash Ambhore who
is an injured eye witness shows that on the
relevant date he was on duty in hall no.5 as
examiner. At that time one student Shukla was
found copying and he asked the student not to copy
from another student’s answer sheet. The said
student ran away and came along with his father
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
9
and brother. They assaulted Prakash Ambhore and
also the complainant. Accused no.2 who is father
of the accused no.1 gave hand blows on nose of the
complainant and blood started oozing from his
nose.
12. The evidence of other witnesses PW 8 Dr.
Laxman Galande who was doctor on duty in Civil
Hospital at Hingoli supports the case of the
prosecution. On examination of complainant the
doctor found that there were two injuries on his
person and
those were shown in the injury
certificate (Exh.35). The evidence of PW 9
Sheshrao Kadam shows that he was on duty on the
said date in the school and he saw that one of the
accused assaulted the complainant on his nose by
means of fist blows and thereafter blood was
oozing from nose of complainant. His evidence
supports the prosecution story that the accused
obstructed them in discharging their official
duties. The evidence of these witnesses is
consistent with each other and the complaint.
. The evidence of head master also supports
the prosecution case so far as assault by the
accused persons to the complainant. He
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
10
specifically deposed that blood was oozing from
nose of complainant. Doctor’s evidence further
shows that injury no.2 which is shown in
certificate Exh.35 is possible by fist blows. The
evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.9 also supports the
prosecution case. The version of the witnesses is
corroborated by medical evidence.
13. In my considered view, the defence taken by
the accused persons that since accused no.1 and 2
are brother and father respectively of the student
Shukla they
have right to enter in the premises
for enquiry purposes at the time of examination is
required to be rejected. There was no reason for
the accused persons to go there during the
examination hours. The manner in which the
accused persons entered the premises of the said
school and further entered in the examination hall
and assaulted P.W.6 Ambhore who was supervising
hall no.5 and subsequently, when they were brought
to office of head master, they assaulted the
complainant, does indicate that they have
committed offence as alleged by the prosecution.
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully
corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9,
which is further supported by medical evidence of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
11
P.W.8.
14. It cannot be forgotten that not only the
accused persons have committed the offence but,
they have entered the place where examination was
being conducted and assaulted the complainant as
well as P.W.6 Prakash Ambhore. The act of the
student to run away with the answer and question
papers, calling father and brother and in turn,
the arrival of the father and brother in the
examination hall of the school and further
assaulting the
complainant and P.W.6 Ambhore is
serious. The entire atmosphere in the educational
institutions gets seriously affected and disturbed
because of such incidents and, therefore, I am of
the view that when both the Courts have
appreciated the evidence and even on independent
scrutiny of the evidence, I am also of the view
that the prosecution has fully established the
case against the applicant – accused. No case is
made out for interference in the impugned judgment
and order.
15. Hence, the criminal revision application is
rejected. Rule is discharged.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::
12
[ S.S. SHINDE ]
Judge.
PLK/
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:22:55 :::