KHAKIBA BHUJANG SURYAWANSHI AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

2026:BHC-AUG:40126


                                                                      CriAppeal-528-2016
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2016

                 1.    Khakiba w/o Bhujang Suryawanshi
                       Age: 44 years, Occu.: Agri.,

                 2.    Madhav s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi,
                       Age: 34 years, Occu.: Agri.,

                 3.    Sanjay s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi,
                       Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agri.,

                 4.    Baliram s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi,
                       Age: 49 years, Occu.: Agri.,

                       All R/o. Narsi, Tq. Naigaon,
                       District Nanded.                                   .. Appellants

                             Versus

                 .     The State of Maharashtra                           .. Respondent

                                                   ….
                 Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the appellants.
                 Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for the respondent/State.
                                                   ….

                                                CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 02.09.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 03.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    This appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction

                 dated 22.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli,

                 in Sessions Case No.06 of 2012 convicting appellants for offence

                 under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [IPC].
                                                     CriAppeal-528-2016
                                 -2-

                     BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     Appellants were charge-sheeted on the premise that on

26.03.2011, in the backdrop of previous quarrel, accused persons

assaulted informant by means of sticks and caused him injuries on

back, knee and left eye. Informant reported the occurrence to police,

who referred him for medical examination. On his report, crime was

registered, which was investigated by PW12, who, on completing

investigation, charge-sheeted the accused persons.


.      At trial, prosecution adduced evidence of as many as 13

witnesses and relied on various panchanamas as well as injury

certificate.


.      After recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, parties were heard and learned trial

Court accepted the case of prosecution, but for offence under Section

323 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted them from the charges

under Sections 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal.


                             SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellants :-


3.     Learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the prosecution

case before this court and pointed out that almost all prosecution
                                                     CriAppeal-528-2016
                                   -3-

witnesses had resiled from their statements and had not supported

prosecution case. According to him, there is sole testimony of

informant and there is no corroboration. Moreover, the allegations

are general, omnibus and vague in nature. It is not clarified as to

which of the accused played what role in the alleged incident. That,

recovery is not proved, however, such crucial aspects are not

appreciated by learned trial Court and case of prosecution is directly

accepted.


.     In the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted

that, if this Court is not inclined to allow the appeal, the appellants

may be directed to pay a fine instead of being sentenced to suffer

imprisonment.


On behalf of respondent/State :-


4.    Learned APP would justify the judgment and order of

conviction, as according to him evidence of informant is credible,

trustworthy and has remained intact. That, there is independent eye

witness account in the form of PW7 and PW8. Moreover, there is also

support from medical evidence and hence, according to him, the

learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused

persons for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
                                                       CriAppeal-528-2016
                                   -4-

                   ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION


5.    Re-appreciated the entire evidence. As submitted, panch to spot

PW1 and PW3, panch to recovery PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6 have not

supported story of prosecution.


6.    PW11 is the complainant and, in his evidence at Exhibit-48, he

testified that, prior to the incident, there was quarrel between him,

Khakiba and his brother over occupying a seat in the rickshaw. On

account of such quarrel, Khakiba and others assaulted him with fists,

kicks and sticks, and therefore, he approached the police.


.     Though this witness was cross-examined, the aforesaid

testimony has not been shaken.


7.    PW7 and PW8 are independent witnesses and they, in their

evidence    at    Exhibit-38      and    Exhibit-39,    deposed     that

accused/appellants beat complainant by means of sticks as well as

legs and accused ran away. Even in cross-examination, their evidence

has remained virtually unshaken.


.     There is also the evidence of PW13, the Medical Expert, who

has deposed about five injuries and their nature, which he noticed

while examining the complainant on 26.03.2011. He also identified
                                                      CriAppeal-528-2016
                                   -5-

the injury certificate issued by him.


8.    Thus, here, there is credible evidence of complainant finding

support from independent witnesses like PW7 and PW8 and there is

support from medical corner. Considering the nature of assault,

offence of voluntarily causing simple injuries is made out and

therefore, ingredients of Section 323 of IPC are attracted.


9.    Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the alleged

incident took place in the year 2011, i.e. almost one and a half

decades back. The conviction was rendered in the year 2016, i.e.

almost ten years ago, and the very conviction has been looming over

their heads for almost a decade, which, according to him, itself was a

sort of punishment. He pointed out that, even before the learned Trial

Court, a prayer was made to impose a fine instead of sentencing the

accused persons to imprisonment.


10.   Admittedly, the occurrence took place in March 2011 and the

trial concluded in the year 2016. There are charges of causing simple

injuries. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and the fact that

Section 323 of the IPC also provides for punishment by way of fine

and as conviction is rendered almost a decade back, in the interest of

justice, imposing a fine instead of sentence of imprisonment would
                                                       CriAppeal-528-2016
                                     -6-

subserve the purpose of justice. Hence, the following order is passed :-


                                ORDER


I)     The conviction imposed on the appellants i.e. 1) Khakiba w/o
Bhujang Suryawanshi, 2) Madhav s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, 3)
Sanjay s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi and 4) Baliram s/o Bhujang
Suryawanshi, for offence punishable under section 323 read with
Section 34 of IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli dated
22.07.2016 in Sessions Case No. 06 of 2012 is hereby maintained and
kept intact.


II.    However, the sentence is reduced and instead of sentencing the
appellants to suffer imprisonment for one year, they are hereby
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only)
each. In default of payment of the fine amount, the appellants shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months."


III.   Bail bonds of appellants stand cancelled.


IV.    It is clarified that rest of the operative order passed by the
learned trial court is maintained.


V.     The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm