Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 628 (BOM)

Sunil Prabhakar Nakhate v. State of Maharashtra

2013-03-13

K.U.CHANDIWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. At the request of Mr. Salunke, Rule is heard forthwith. 3. Revision applicant questions conviction recorded in RCC No.73/2003 for offense under Section 324 of IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 27.2.2006, who directed the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. The matter was carried in Appeal No. 2/2006 and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6th Feb., 2013. 4. The revision applicant is in custody. On appreciation of evidence of the injured complainant, by both the Courts and reevaluation by this Court, illustrate that the applicant was conscious of nature of his assault and its consequences. He had inflicted thrice upon the complainant by a knife. Resultantly, there was profuse bleeding to the complainant. He was hospitalized for 12/13 days. His movements were restricted. The root cause for the crime or assault was the Gram Panchayat election. The medical certificate issued on 15.4.2003, by the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Dharur Exh.46(c) explains the force and gravity of the injuries inflicted by the revision applicant to the complainant. First injury is (a) incised wound at forehead above left eye, 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms., (b) Incised wound on forehead left side 4 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms, (c) incised wound on left parietal region 5 x 1 x 1/2 cms. (d) incised wound on left palm and wrist 7 x 2 x 1 cms. Injuries were grave. The succinct account of events suffered by the complainant were indicated by eye witness; complainant PW No. 2 Pradip Navnath Nakhate, PW No.5 Sanjay Babasaheb Nakhate. The narration of PW No. 5 is in unison with that of the complainant. Little aberration will not vitiate the account of brutality to nullity. The Medical Officer PW No. 3 Dr. Anant Pandharinath Kurwade has proved the injuries, as disclosed in medical certificate. The injured complainant was indoor patient for 12 to 13 days. The appreciation of evidence of complainant and the eye witnesses carried by both the Courts, in the fact situation, is in tune with the record, does not demonstrate any perversity or weaving on surmises. I do not see any error in the order of conviction though charge was framed under Section 326 of IPC. 5. During the course of arguments, Mr. I do not see any error in the order of conviction though charge was framed under Section 326 of IPC. 5. During the course of arguments, Mr. Salunke has informed, the applicant has undergone turmoil of prosecution for ten years as the incident is dated 15.4.2003. He has lost his mother last year. He has no criminal record. Additionally, the applicant is ready to compensate by way of depositing around Rs.50,000/- as compensation or costs in this Court. 6. Considering overall survey of the matter, the applicant having faced tumultuous situation, and as the complainant/injured also is no more (expired in an accident), the sentence is modified as under:- (a) The conviction recorded in RCC No. 73/2003 and in Criminal Appeal No.2/2006 for offense under Section 324 of IPC is confirmed. Sentence is modified. The revision applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 months (three months) and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. five hundred); in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. (b) Fine is already deposited on 27th Feb., 2006, vide receipt No. 9677 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur. (c) Additionally, the revision applicant to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) within a period of four months from today with High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, at Aurangabad. (d) Revision partly allowed. Criminal Application 716/2013 disposed of. Set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. be extended to the revision applicant. Revision partly allowed.