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. 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 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. 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 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 viewof 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant deserves 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 evidence 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 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 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). 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 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 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 evidence of the prosecution witnesses fully corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7 and 9, which is further supported by medical evidence of 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.