DNYANESHWAR ALIAS NANABHAU S/O BHIKA RANDIVE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:43648


                                                                      CriAppeal-536-2016
                                                      -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.536 OF 2016

                 1.    Dnyaneshwar alias Nanabhau
                       s/o Bhika Randive,
                       Age: 37 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                 2.    Bhika s/o Gopal Randive,
                       Age: 72 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                 3.    Dadabhau s/o Bhika Randive,
                       Age: 45 years, Occu.: Agri.,

                 4.    Satyabhamabai w/o Bhika Randive,
                       Age: 67 years, Occu.: Household,
                       Appellant Nos.1 to 4 R/o. Hol
                       (Sangvi), Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon,
                       At present R/o. Near Water Tank
                       Navegaon, At post Talegaon,
                       Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.                    .. Appellant

                             Versus

                 .     The State of Maharashtra                          .. Respondent
                                                 …
                 Mr. Ravindra M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant.
                 Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the respondent/State.
                                                 ...

                                                CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 24.09.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 28.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    Present appeal is an offshoot of the judgment and order of

                 conviction dated 02.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

                 Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.40 of 2009 convicting the appellant No.1
                                                    CriAppeal-536-2016
                                 -2-

for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code [IPC] and

convicting all the appellants for offence under Sections 323, 504 read

with Section 34 of IPC.


2.    In brief, case of prosecution in Trial Court was that, on

16.08.2008 around 6.30 p.m. while complainant PW1 in the company

of PW3 and PW5 was standing in front of house of one Ramdas Naik

at village Hol, accused Nos.1 to 4 came there. PW5 questioned

accused No.1 why he let his buffaloes enter his field and damage the

crop. A verbal exchange of words took place, after which accused

Nos.1 to 4 abused PW5. Accused No.4 used footwear to hit PW5 and

after accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of PW5, accused No.1 dealt a

blow on the head of PW5, as a result of which he fell unconscious and

was taken to hospital. He was treated at various hospitals on account

of head/brain injury. PW1, son of injured, filed report Exhibit-23, on

the strength of which, crime was registered, investigated and accused

were charge-sheeted and finally tried by the learned Sessions Judge,

who accepted the case of prosecution and rendered conviction for

offence under Sections 326, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Hence, the instant appeal.


3.    At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out

that appellant/accused No.2 Bhika Gopal Randive has expired during
                                                    CriAppeal-536-2016
                                 -3-

pendency of appeal and his death certificate is placed on record. In

view of the same, the appeal stands disposed of as abated as against

appellant/accused No.2 Bhika Gopal Randive.


4.    So far as appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, learned

Counsel for the appellants apprised this Court about the story of

prosecution in Trial Court. He also took this Court through the length

and breadth of prosecution witnesses and would submit that

prosecution has adduced only evidence of interested witnesses, who

are relatives. No independent witness has been examined. He also

questions prosecution story about proving the very scene of

occurrence. He would submit that evidence of prosecution witness is

also silent about accused to be armed with article wooden log. That,

allegations against accused No.4 is of mere hitting by means of

footwear. Accused Nos.2 and 3 did not indulge in any overt act, and

the only allegations against them are of catching hold of Pundlik. He

further submitted that the occurrence took place in 2008, the

judgment was rendered in 2016 and, finally, the appeal is being heard

in 2026, and that almost a decade has elapsed. He prays that the

accused be let off with the sentence already undergone. He pointed

that accused No.1 was arrested on 17.08.2008 and released on bail on

07.10.2008 and as such he was already spent 1 month and 20 days
                                                      CriAppeal-536-2016
                                  -4-

behind bars.


5.    Learned APP also took this Court through the prosecution

evidence and would submit that there is not only the account of the

injured but also the evidence of direct witnesses who were party to

the assault. They are all consistent regarding the occurrence, the role

of the accused and the manner of assault, and there is corroboration

from the medical evidence. Therefore, according to him, the learned

Trial Court has committed no error in recording the guilt of the

accused. He pointed out that, considering the nature of the injuries

suffered by the victim and the period of hospitalization, the appellants

do not deserve leniency by way of reduction of sentence. According to

him, the learned Trial Court has already shown leniency by acquitting

the appellants of the graver offence under Section 307 of the IPC.


6.    Re-appreciated the evidence. PW1 is the son of injured PW5;

PW3 is the nephew of PW5; PW5 is the injured himself; PW7 and

PW8 are the acquaintances; PW6, PW9, and PW11 are medical

experts.


7.    On analyzing the evidence of informant PW1 at Exhibit-22, he

has deposed that on 16.08.2008 around 6.30 p.m. while he was near

the shop of one Bhaurao Patil, at that time, his uncle Pundlik was

standing opposite to the house of Ramdas Naik. Therefore, accused
                                                    CriAppeal-536-2016
                                 -5-

Nos.1 to 4 abused him. Accused No.4 hit Pundlik with footwear and

thereafter, accused No.2 Bhika and accused No.3 Dadarao caught

hold of Pundlik, whereas accused No.1 Nanabhau dealt blow with

wooden log on the head of Pundlik, who fell down and became

unconscious and was taken to hospital.

.     Though he was cross-examined at length, nothing adverse or

damaging to the prosecution has been brought on record.


8.    PW3 Sandip, also a nephew of Pundlik, has stated about

accused No.4 beating Pundlik with Chappal, as a result of verbal

exchange between accused No.1 and Pundlik in the backdrop of

buffalo of accused No.1 grazing in the crop of Pundlik. He also stated

that accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of Pundlik and accused No.1

gave blow with wooden log on the head of Pundlik. Even his evidence

to the above extent has remained intact.


9.    Very injured is examined as PW5 at Exhibit-31 and he has also

stated that in the afternoon of 16.08.2008, when he had been to the

field, he saw accused No.1 grazing his cattle in his field. The cattle

has eaten and damaged the crop and therefore, he went back to the

village. Around 6.30 p.m., he asked accused No.1 why he grazed his

cattle in his field, upon which accused got angry. Accused No.4

Satyabhamabai beat him with Chappal. Accused Nos.2 and 3
                                                      CriAppeal-536-2016
                                   -6-

Bhikabhau and Dadabhau also came there and caught hold of him,

after which accused No.1 Dnyaneshwar dealt a blow with a wooden

log on his head, as a result of which he lost consciousness and was

not aware of what happened thereafter. That, his brother had brought

him to J. J. Hospital for treatment. He identified accused as well as

the article shown to him in the Court.

.     Though he was also cross-examined, some minor omissions

were brought on record in paragraph No.3, but the occurrence of the

assault has not been rendered doubtful.


10.   PW6 is the doctor, who examined PW5 at around 7.00 p.m. and

he referred him to Jalgaon, as he could not treat him in his clinic.


11.   PW9 is the doctor who treated the injured and, in his evidence

at Exhibit-44, has narrated his findings upon examination and after

getting a CT scan done. He also deposed that the injuries noticed by

him and reflected in Exhibit-45 were possible as a result of a blow

with wooden log, Article ‘A’, and that the injury was sufficient to

cause death in the ordinary course of nature had he not been treated

immediately.


12.   PW11 is also another doctor, who attended injured in his

hospital at 8.05 p.m., gave preliminary treatment and further referred

him to Civil Hospital. He also deposed that taking into account the
                                                      CriAppeal-536-2016
                                  -7-

wooden log and city scan report, injuries are possible by wooden log.


13.   PW4 is the panch witness to memorandum of disclosure and

recovery Exhibit-29 and Exhibit-30 at the instance of accused

Dnyaneshwar.

14.   Therefore, above discussed evidence, categorically shows that

on 16.08.2008, there was assault by accused No.1 on the head of

PW5 by means of wooden log after accused No.2 and 3 facilitated the

assault. Witnesses categorically define role of accused No.4 also.

15.   Learned Trial Court has convicted accused No.1 alone for

offence under Section 326 of IPC and in the considered opinion of this

Court, he is rightly convicted for causing grievous hurt. Considering

the nature of injuries coming on record from medical experts, this

Court is not inclined to show leniency by reducing the sentence to

already undergone. Hence, the conviction of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is

required to be maintained. There being no merits in the appeal, it

deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :-

                                ORDER

      .     Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
scm