STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MALLIKARJUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State, being aggrieved by the order of inadequate sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Degloor, for the offence under section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has come in the appeal.

(2.) The accused/revision Petitioners by filing a Revision have challenged the judgment and order dated 27-9-2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, who confirmed the judgment and order of J. M. F. C. in Regular Trial No. 177/1992. By the judgment of the J. M. F. C. , the accused/original accused No. 2 - Mallikarjun; accused No. 5 -Laxman and accused No. 10 - Shivraj, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and were directed to suffer R. I. for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to further undergo R. I. for one year. By the said judgment, the learned j. M. F. C. has acquitted the other accused. It is the matter of record that said acquittal of other accused was also subjected to Criminal Appeal No. 396/1994, as raised by the State and by judgment dated 27-10-2005, this Court rejected the criminal Appeal No. 396/1994.

(3.) The learned Sr. Counsel for the accused criticized the F. I. R. of the complainant (P. W. I) claiming that it is silent about the names of the accused and in the evidence he says that Sangram came to the house, while in the F. I. R. he states that while he was at home, employees working in field came. The criticism to the evidence of P. W. 1 basically is not to be considered as P. W. I is not an eyewitness to the incident. Whatever report he has given to the police is based on the communication received from his employees, who informed that his brother hanmant was brutally assaulted and consequently, he rushed to police to put the investigation in motion. In this scenario of the matter, Exhibit-65 or evidence of p. W. I will have to be read. It cannot be said there are omissions and or contradictions in his evidence.