SHIVAJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application is preferred by original accused against Judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 1998 dismissing their appeal against Judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Basmathnagar in Criminal Case (R.C.C.No.79/1994) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 324, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Out of the six revision applicants, applicant No.3 - Bhagwan, applicant No.5 - Bhaskar and applicant No.6 - Atmaram were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. They were, however, convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 324 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. They were sentenced, likewise the other applicants to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each for offence punishable under Sections 148 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. They were also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for offence punishable under Sec. 324 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C., likewise, the other applicants. In addition, the other applicants i.e. applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the impugned Judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate and confirmed the aforesaid conviction and sentences imposed on the applicants.

(3.) Challenge in this revision application is to the illegality and correctness of both the Judgments. Mr.Choudhari S.S., learned Advocate for the revision applicants would submit that the impugned Judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is improper and incorrect inasmuch as there is no independent appreciation of evidence undertaken by the first appellate Court. He would submit that genesis of the incident is not reliable. He would further submit that the prosecution witnesses are interested and there is no independent corroboration. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge committed patent error while framing the points for determination and casually confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court without considering the relevant factual and legal aspects of the matter. Mr.Choudhari would submit that the prosecution evidence is vague in so far as alleged cruelty to the prosecutrix is concerned. He further argued that the medical evidence is not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction could not be for offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. when it was not proved that any dangerous weapon, which could have caused death of a person, was used in the course of alleged assault. He argued that the prosecutrix and her relatives prepared a false case and hence the applicants should have been given benefit of reasonable doubt. Per contra, learned A.P.P., Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, would submit that reappreciation of evidence by this Court is not called for and the impugned Judgment is sustainable.