SACHIN ARJUN LAKAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original convicts challenge the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dtd. 3/8/2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 134 of 2019, recording conviction for offence under Sec. 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

(2.) In brief, case of prosecution before learned Sessions Judge was that, on 6/1/2026, informant, who was working as an Assistant Teacher, was conducting extra classes. One Sachin Lakal accompanied by a juvenile in conflict with law came there and asked informant to come out of the class. When they were asked to wait, it is reported that, both the persons entered the classroom, caught hold of the informant, dragged him out of the class room and brought him to the ground, where it is alleged that, other accused, namely, Umesh Kokane, Mohammad and three other persons questioned informant for obstructing them from entering the college. According to informant, accused Sachin Lakal assaulted the informant on the back, head and limbs by cable wire whereas, the juvenile in conflict with law used stick, accused Umesh Kokane put hockey stick to use and remaining accused, namely, Mohammad and three others gave kicks and fist blows and there were abuses followed by life threats. While in hospital, informant lodged report with police of Osmanabad City Police Station, who registered crime bearing no. 10/2016 for offence under Ss. 353, 332, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After committal, learned Sessions Judge framed charge, appreciated the evidence of nine witnesses as well as documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, held charge to be proved but only for offence under Sec. 323 r/w 34 of IPC, and sentenced them to suffer six months imprisonment and also to pay fine. However, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit them from the charges of Ss. 353, 332, 504 and 506 of IPC. There is challenge to the above judgment and order of conviction by the convicts by way of instant appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellants would point out that there is false implication. That, there is no convincing evidence also. According to him, out of nine witnesses, including eye witnesses and panchas, three witnesses have turned hostile.