SHAKIL NOOR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner were tried for offences punishable under sections 336, 337, 504 and 506 all read with 34 I. P. C. by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at PUNE. He found them guilty for an offence punishable under section 326 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo one years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 15 days R. I. . The petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 1989 in Sessions Court, Pune, against the aforesaid convictions and sentences. The said appeal was decided on 4-6-1992 by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. The learned Judge altered the conviction of the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 from section 326 to one under section 324 I. P. C. . He, however, maintained the same sentence which was awarded to them for the offence under section 326 I. P. C. The Appellate Court, however, confirmed the conviction and sentence of petitioner No. 3 Arjun Rajaram Awachetty for the offence under section 326 I. P. C. .

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that, on 2-6-85 at about 2. 30 p. m. , petitioner No. 3 and his family members picked up a quarrel with the wife of the complainant Vishnu Babanrao Kshirsagar on account of parking of the scooter and also abused and threatened her. It is said that she had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint and when the complainant was about to go to the police station, the petitioners threatened to kill him. They broke his empty bottles which were on a handcart and pelted pieces of the same, resulting in the complainant and his brothers grand daughter sustaining injuries. It is said that as a result of petitioner No. 3 viz. Arjun Rajaram Awachetty hurling a broken piece of glass, the complainant had completely lost vision of his left eye. It is said that petitioner No. 1 was caught on the spot but the other petitioners managed to run away.

(3.) AFTER the usual F. I. R. , medical examination of victims and investigation, the petitioners were chargesheeted for offences mentioned in para 1 and their trial and appeals were disposed off in the manners stated in the said para. Hence this revision.