MOHANLAL S/O BABULAL BASSAIYEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:3581


                                                                      Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                                    -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2025

                Mohanlal s/o Babulal Bassaiye,
                Age : 85 years, Occu : Nil,
                R/o Sanjay Nagar, Lane No. C-7,
                Near Amar High School,
                Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar-431 001.                 … Applicant
                                                               [Orig. Informant]
                        Versus

                1.      The State of Maharashtra,

                2.      Ravindra Radhakisan Bassaiye,
                        Age : 47 years, Occu : Business,
                        R/o Sanjay Nagar, Aurangabad.              … Respondents
                                                              [R.No.2 orig. Accused]
                                                   …..
                     Mr. Rahul Joshi h/f Ms. Kirti Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant.
                         Mr. N. R. Dayma, Advocate for Respondent No.1-State.
                         Mr. Somnath G. Ladda, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                    .....

                                          CORAM :         ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on         : 22.01.2026
                                          Pronounced on       : 28.01.2026

                JUDGMENT :


                1.      Original informant, who set law into motion by virtue of crime

                no. I-121/2012 for commission of offence under Sections 323, 325,

                504 r/w 34 of IPC, is hereby taking exception to the judgment and

                order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

                Aurangabad dated 19.06.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 161 of

                2017.
                                                      Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                 -2-




2.    On   above   referred   crime,   City   Chowk     Police   Station,

Aurangabad conducted investigation and chargesheeted present

respondent for above referred offences. After appreciation of evidence

of six witnesses, learned J.M.F.C. convicted only accused no.1 and

acquitted rest of the accused by judgment and order dated

06.09.2017. Against the same, convict Ravindra preferred appeal

before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad vide Criminal

Appeal No. 161 of 2017 and the said first appellate court was pleased

to set aside the order of learned J.M.F.C. and allow the appeal.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, original complainant has preferred

instant appeal.



3.    Learned counsel for appellant would submit that, there was

dispute over shop. On relevant night, four accused persons assaulted

informant while he was in the company of his daughter. Assault was

carried out by means of wooden danda inflicting injury to

complainant. Prompt complaint was lodged. That, before learned trial

court, prosecution adduced evidence of six witnesses including that of

daughter of complainant who was party to the occurrence. Medical

witness, who examined complainant, had also stepped into the

witness box and therefore, charge of Section 324 IPC was made out
                                                       Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                   -3-

and conviction was recorded by trial court against accused no.1. Said

judgment and order was just, legal and proper and needed no

interference. However, according to him, learned first appellate court

overturned the above reasoned findings doubting the cause of injury.

That, in fact, learned trial court had scrupulously examined

testimonies of each and every witness. Only on offence being made

out and there being direct evidence, conviction of accused no.1 was

rightly recorded. Thus, it is his submission that, first appellate court

ought not to have interfered and therefore, he prays to set aside the

order of first appellate court and enforce the order of trial court.



4.    Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Ladda would point out that,

there was false implication due to dispute over ownership of shop.

That, there are admissions by complainant as well as his daughter

regarding dispute over ownership of shop. He pointed out that,

complainant and his daughter are not consistent with each other

regarding the occurrence. He further pointed out that, according to

complainant, the alleged incident lasted for one hour which was

apparently an exaggerated version as his very own daughter deposed

about occurrence lasted for five to four minutes. Thus, it is his

submission that, there is exaggeration and improvisation.
                                                      Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                   -4-

5.      He further pointed out that, admittedly in the cross

complainant himself had admitted that he had fallen down.

Therefore, according to him, though there was injury to the left hand,

it was attributable to such fall. He pointed out that, allegations of

assault by wooden danda are not substantiated as, according to him,

very pancha to recovery of danda under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act had not supported prosecution. Consequently, when even medical

officer in cross admitted injury to be possible on account of fall, it is

his submission that, learned trial court has committed no error

whatsoever in allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of trial

court    wherein   there   was   erroneous    appreciation   and    non-

consideration of cross of the medical witness. He pointed out that,

even complainant PW1 and his daughter PW2 were not consistent

regarding the actual occurrence also. For above reasons, he supports

the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge and prays to dismiss

the appeal.



6.      After considering above submissions, and on going through the

record, it seems that, on report of PW1 above crime was registered at

City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad and after investigation, trial

was conducted by learned J.M.F.C., who acquitted accused nos. 2 to 4

but convicted accused no.1 alone, that too for offence under Section
                                                    Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                 -5-

324 IPC only. In appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge,

he seems to have succeeded. In trial court prosecution seems to have

adduced evidence of in all six witnesses i.e. PW1 complainant, PW2

daughter of complainant, PW3 pancha to spot panchanama, PW4

pancha to recovery panchanama, PW5 Investigating Officer and PW6

medical expert.



7.    Re-appreciated the entire evidence. PW1 complainant in his

evidence at Exhibit 11 testified that, ancestral property shop which

was given on rent was got vacated one year back. According to him,

on 17.07.2012 at around 8.00 p.m. while and he his daughter were

cleaning the shop, at that time, accused Ravindra, Manoj, Vinod and

Sanjay came and claimed ownership of the shop and after abusing

him, he claims that, he was made to fall down. He testified that

accused Ravindra hit him by means of danda on left hand as well as

on legs causing him fracture injury and so he reported police who

referred him for medical.



      While under cross, he answered that the incident lasted for

almost one hour and admitted that at the time of incident, he had

fallen on the spot. He admitted that, when he was opening lock of the

shop, he was requested by accused not to open the shop. He admitted
                                                     Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                  -6-

that, at the time of incident, only he and his daughter were present,

but subsequently added that his daughter-in-law was also present.



8.    PW2 Rina, who was examined at Exhibit 19, also stated that

while she was in the company of her father that night, and while her

father was opening the shop, accused nos. 1 to 4 came there, claimed

ownership of the shop, prevented him from opening it and after

abusing, she claims that, all accused made her father fall down and

accused Ravindra hit her father with danda. According to her, rest of

the accused gave her father slaps also and therefore report was

lodged by her father.



      Initial cross of this witness is on the point of her own

occupation, her husband’s occupation and regarding dispute over the

shop. In para 6 of the cross, she answered that the incident lasted for

ten minutes and actual beating was for five minutes. She answered

that, other persons present at the spot intercepted in separation.



9.    PW3 is the pancha to spot panchanama, whereas PW4 is the

pancha to recovery, but he has apparently not supported prosecution.
                                                      Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                   -7-

10.   PW6 is the medical expert and he is examined at Exhibit 46,

wherein he stated that on 17.07.2012, on referral, he examined

Mohanlal and noticed four blunt injuries and therefore he issued

certificate Exhibit 47.



      While under cross, medical expert has admitted that injuries

noticed by him are possible by fall from steps in a pit.



11.   On complete re-appreciation, here, occurrence seems to be a

fall out of dispute over shop. PW1 and PW2, i.e. complainant and his

daughter have deposed about the occurrence. However, it is pertinent

to note that after they mentioned arrival of accused, none of them

spoke about accused to be armed with danda or even it being picked

up from the spot to assault complainant. Pancha to recovery of danda

has unfortunately not supported prosecution. Medical expert PW6 has

noticed four blunt injuries, but in cross has admitted that the same

are possible on account of fall. Even complainant and his daughter

admit that during the occurrence, complainant had fallen down.

Therefore there are other possibilities for injuries on the person of

complainant. In the light above discussion, doubt creeps in regarding

actual use of danda by sole convict accused. Learned J.M.F.C., on the

same set of evidence, has already acquitted remaining accused.
                                                     Cri.Appeal-110-2025
                                 -8-

Learned first appellate court has again re-appreciated the evidence

and has set aside the order of J.M.F.C. Even this Court, on complete

re-appreciation, for above reasons finds it a fit case for benefit of

doubt. Therefore, as there is no case on merits, following order is

passed :

                              ORDER

                 Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre