CHANDRAKANT SAHADU KAWAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38740


                                                     {1}            CrAppeal-234-2016


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2016

                 Chandrakant Sahadu Kaware
                 Age: 45 years,
                 R/o. Warkhedmala, Parner,
                 Tal. Parner, District Ahmednagar.             ….Appellant
                                                               (Orig. Accused)
                                Versus
                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station, Parner,
                 Parner, Tal. Parner, District Ahmednagar.     …..Respondent
                                                  …..
                 Mr. Atul B. Gatne, Advocate for Appellant :
                 Mr.V.M. Lomte, APP for Respondents:
                                                  …..

                                         CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON   : 27 AUGUST, 2026
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 28 AUGUST, 2026
                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.       In this appeal, there is challenge to judgment and order dated

                 11-02-2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in

                 Sessions Case No.158 of 2013, convicting the appellant for offence

                 under Sections 332, 336, 324, 353, 427 of the Indian Penal Code

                 (IPC).

                                         BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

                 2.        In brief, case of prosecution in trial Court was that, on
                                  {2}            CrAppeal-234-2016


16-06-2011, telephonic information was received by PW5 Jagtap, a

Police Naik, regarding a person terrorizing people, pelting stones,

and obstructing traffic. Accordingly, police party reached the spot at

around 01:45 p.m. and noticed that, accused, who was armed with a

knife, was raising hue and cry and also terrorizing people. When

police went to pacify him, he allegedly abused police official and

when he was tried to be nabbed, he gave knife blow on the neck of

PW5 Jagtap, a blow which was warded off, but causing injury to

finger. Finally, police managed to nab him. Police party learnt from

the people gathered there that, said accused person has desecrated

statue of “Lord Hanuman” and therefore, after bringing accused to

the Police station, PW5 Jagtap lodged report, resulting into

registration of Crime No.114 of 2011 for offence under Sections 307,

295-A, 452, 353, 324, 323, 332, 427, 504, 506, 336 and 337 of the

IPC and under Sections 37(1)(3)/135 of the Bombay Police Act.

      PW7 Shivarkar, who was entrusted with investigation, carried

out the same, and chargesheeted the accused, who was finally tried

vide above sessions case and also came to be convicted. Hence, the

instant appeal.
                                   {3}            CrAppeal-234-2016


            BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT

         In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in

all eight witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as under :


3.       PW1 Sahadu Dnyandeo Jadhav, Panch to seizure of knife, has

not supported prosecution.


4.       PW2 Shivaji Paraji Sobale is the Pancha to panchanama of

damaged Bus. Said Panchanama is at exh.22.


5.       PW3 Balasaheb Tarate is the Driver of Parner Public School

Bus, which was damaged and according to him, while he was taking

children to Parner Peth and when the bus reached near Lower “ Ves”

accused came towards Bus, lifted a cement block and threw it on the

Bus causing damage to left side window of the bus. According to

him, accused was also holding a knife.


6.       PW4 Ganesh Pandharinath Kanade is the shop owner namely

Sheetal Foot Wear, a glass of which was also allegedly broken and he

deposed that, accused came near his shop and saw him breaking the

glass.


7.       PW5 Vilas Vitthal Jagtap (Police Naik) is the Informant, who
                                  {4}             CrAppeal-234-2016


claims that, when he tried to nab accused, he was assaulted by means

of knife. That, blow on the neck was warded off, but he sustained

injury to right hand finger. He has set law into motion.


8.    PW6 Dr.Balasaheb Kaware is the Medical Officer, who had

occasion to examine one of the injured.


9.    PW7 Sunil Bhagwantrao Shivarkar is the Investigating Officer.


10.   PW8 Dattatraya Rambhau Redekar is police personnel, who

was present at the spot alongwith other police staff.


                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

11.    Pointing to above evidence, learned counsel for appellant

submits that, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the

charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, there was no convincing

and cogent evidence in support of the charges.          At the outset, he

questions the prosecution story for not conducting test identification

parade as accused was admittedly a stranger to all the witnesses. He

pointed out that, though there was said to be huge crowed at the

spot, no independent witness or injured witness is examined. He
                                  {5}             CrAppeal-234-2016


would submit that, though there is allegation of use of knife, its

recovery is not proved as prosecution witness did not support on that

count. According to him, scientific evidence also does not support

prosecution as inspite of claiming to be witness suffering bleeding

injury, no blood stain was detected over the knife.



12.   He further took this Court through the impugned judgment

and would point out that, here, learned trial Court on the same set of

evidence, acquitted the accused from charges under Sections 295-A,

323, 504, 506, 337, 307 and 452 of the IPC and under Sections

37(1)(a)(3)/135 of the Bombay Police Act, but he questions

conviction for offence under Sections 332, 353, 324, 336 and 427 of

the IPC, which requires essential ingredients to be established, which

prosecution failed to do so and on such count also, he questions the

maintainability and sustainability of impugned judgment.


On behalf of State :

13.    Learned APP, who supported impugned judgment, would point

out that, essential ingredients of causing voluntary hurt to public

servant to deter him from performing duty, have been demonstrated

by the prosecution in the trial Court. That, all prosecution witnesses

stood the cross-examination and their testimony having remained
                                  {6}             CrAppeal-234-2016


unshaken, he justifies the order of conviction and prays to dismiss the

appeal for want of merits.   In support of his submissions, he relied

on the judgment of this Court dated 06-05-2026 passed in the case of

Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari v. The State of Maharashtra in

Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2016 with connected matter.


                              ANALYSIS

14.   On studying the papers, it is noticed that, though there was

charge for aforesaid offences, learned trial Court undisputedly, on

complete appreciation of evidence, has itself acquitted the accused

from charges under Sections 295-A, 323, 504, 506, 337, 307 and 452

of the IPC as well as under Sections 37(1)(a)(3)/135 of the Bombay

Police Act, however, conviction has been recorded for offence under

Sections 332, 324, 353, 336 and 427 of the IPC.

      Case of prosecution in trial Court was that, accused initially

desecrated and defiled the statue of “Lord Hanuman” and thereafter,

created chaos and terror in the vicinity by getting armed with knife.

He caused damage to the school bus, a shoe shop and when he was

tried to be nabbed by police party, he inflicted a knife blow on them

and thereby committed above offences.


15.   Admittedly, as submitted, when accused was a stranger, it was
                                  {7}            CrAppeal-234-2016


incumbent of prosecution at the first count to get test identification

parade conducted by confronting accused atleast to the independent

witnesses, who were injured. However, here, no such test

identification parade is conducted.      Even independent injured

witness namely Yogesh Shantaram Wagh, whose name is reflected in

the FIR for suffering injury, is not made to step into the witness box

even when Doctor, who examined him and certified injury, is

examined by prosecution.


16.   Though there is allegation of use of article knife, pancha

witness to its recovery has not been examined. School bus driver and

shoe shop owner, whose bus glass and shop glass were allegedly

damaged, are examined, but as stated above, no test identification

parade has been conducted and there is direct dock identification.

Pancha to the panchanama of damage to bus glass admitted that

police did not seize the broken pieces of glass and merely seized the

cement block.


17.   PW4 shop owner has also not supported prosecution. PW5 is

the crucial witness and he was tried to be attacked by accused, but

though he has suffered injury, there is no injury certificate

attributable to same. As pointed out, he has not categorically stated
                                   {8}            CrAppeal-234-2016


which of the fingers of his right hand suffered bleeding injury.


18.   Again as pointed out, it is noticed that, learned trial Court has,

on the same set of evidence, recorded a finding that, prosecution

failed to prove voluntary causing of hurt, and answered point No.4

regarding voluntary causing hurt to one Yogesh Wagh in affirmative,

but said injured witness was never examined by prosecution in the

trial Court.


19.   Similarly, one of the striking features of the case is that, when

offence of Section 323 of the IPC is held to be not proved,

surprisingly, offence of Section 332 of the IPC is held to be proved.

Therefore, apparently there does not seem to be correct appreciation

of evidence while recording the findings. For the more reason, as

there is apparent error on the part of trial Court in appreciating the

evidence, such judgment and order cannot allowed to be sustained.

Accordingly, following order is passed :



                                ORDER



I.    The appeal is allowed.
                                    {9}            CrAppeal-234-2016


II.      Conviction awarded to the appellant Chandrakant Sahadu
Kaware by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case
No.158 of 2013, for offence under Sections 332, 353, 324, 336 and
427 of the Indian Penal Code on 11-02-2016, stands quashed and set
aside.

III.     Appellant stands acquitted of the offence under Sections 332,
353, 324, 336 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

IV.      The bail bonds of appellant stand cancelled.

V.       Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant
after the statutory period.


VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order

regarding disposal of Muddemal.



                                          ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                 JUDGE

SPT