MAHADEO S/O PRABHAKAR DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41739


                                                                      CriAppeal-558-2016
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2016

                 Mahadeo s/o Prabhakar Deshmukh
                 Age: 28 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
                 R/o. Katpur, Taluka and District Latur.           .. Appellant
                                                                [Orig. Accused]
                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra                           .. Respondent
                                                    …
                 Mr. Kalyan V. Patil, Advocate for the appellant.
                 Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for respondent-State.
                                                    ...

                                                CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 09.09.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 10.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    Appellant, a convict for offence under Sections 326 and 323 of

                 IPC, hereby challenges the judgment and order dated 29.08.2016

                 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case

                 No. 75 of 2015.



                 2.    PW2 set law into motion by approaching Latur Rural Police

                 Station on 23.04.2015 reporting that, appellant Mahadeo, who is son

                 of her brother-in-law, assaulted his own wife and daughter by means

                 of sickle. When informant’s husband went to give understanding to

                 the appellant, he was also assaulted. On such report given with PW7
                                                     CriAppeal-558-2016
                                  -2-

PSO, crime was registered bearing no. 73 of 2015 for offence under

Sections 324, 325, 326 of IPC. PW9 carried out investigation and

chargesheeted accused and he was finally made to face trial in the

court of Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, where prosecution adduced

evidence of as many as 10 witnesses. Said evidence was appreciated

and learned trial court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2016, convicted

accused but only for offence under Sections 326 and 323 of IPC and

sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for three and half years and to

pay fine.


      It is the above judgment that is challenged before this Court.



3.    Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, though

prosecution adduced evidence of as many as 10 witnesses, including

very informant as well as injured, all witnesses have not supported

prosecution and were cross-examined by prosecution itself. There was

only evidence of Doctor and Investigating Officer and only on the

strength of the same, there is conviction. Moreover, according to him,

the incident is between relatives. Now they are all residing peacefully

and there is no animosity surviving as on today. That, further, during

trial as applicant was behind bars for more than 18 months, he be let

off for sentence already undergone.
                                                     CriAppeal-558-2016
                                    -3-

4.      Per contra, learned APP would submit that, learned trial court

on complete appreciation of evidence has accepted the case of

prosecution and as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the

same.



5.      In the backdrop of above submissions, record is put to scrutiny

and it is noticed that, PW1 spot pancha; PW2 very complainant; PW3

injured eye witness and uncle of accused; PW4 injured and very wife

of accused; PW5 injured daughter of accused; PW6 pancha to

collection of blood stains, have all en bloc resiled from their

testimonies and were cross-examined by learned APP, but nothing

fruitful has been elicited in said exercise.



6.      Therefore the only evidence that remains for consideration is

that of PW7 PSO who received report and registered crime, PW8 and

PW10 medical experts and PW9 Investigating Officer.



        PW7 deposed about report being received by him and he

registering crime on the basis of the same. PW8 and PW10, who are

medical experts, in their respective evidence, testified that on

23.04.2015 Subhash Deshmukh (PW3) was admitted in hospital and

Doctor PW8 described four injuries noticed by him and further
                                                      CriAppeal-558-2016
                                   -4-

deposed about certifying injury nos. 1 and 2 to be grievous. He flatly

denied the injuries to be possible due to fall. He identified Exhibit 37.

Likewise PW10 at Exhibit 49 deposed that, on 23.04.2015 while he

was a Casualty Medical Officer, API Sayyad of Latur Rural Police

Station brought patient namely Subhash Deshmukh and he examined

said patient and noticed injuries narrated by him in his evidence. He

also deposed about examining Mahadeo Deshmukh, Nikita Deshmukh

and also described the nature and form of injuries on their person

during his examination. Both these witnesses have identified injury

certificates issued by them. Consequently, though injured themselves

have not supported prosecution, there is evidence of Investigating

Officer who took injured to the hospital and both medical experts

have examined, treated and certified the injuries. Therefore, there is

evidence about injured being assaulted.



7.    On going through the record, it is noticed that informant PW2

deposed that one year back, her husband sustained injuries, and

taking into account the evidence of Investigating Officer PW9 wherein

he deposed that injured were referred to medical examination,

learned trial court recorded a finding that there was dispute over

agricultural land and hence, incident had occurred on the intervening

night of 22.04.2015 and 23.04.2015. On the strength of evidence of
                                                     CriAppeal-558-2016
                                 -5-

medical experts and Investigating Officer, learned trial court has

finally recorded a finding that injuries suffered by witnesses are due

to assault by appellant and thereby accepted the case of prosecution

and held appellant guilty for offence under Sections 326 and 323 of

IPC. Hence, trial court has, in the considered opinion of this Court,

appreciated the evidence adduced by prosecution on the point of

assault by appellant. Subsequently it appears that, injured witnesses

being relative, they have deposed to favour the accused.



8.    Now in appeal, apart from stating that informant as well as very

injured had not supported, submission is also made that applicant was

behind bars for almost 18 months and now differences having sorted

out and parties, who are relatives, to be residing harmoniously

together, appellant be let off by reducing his sentence to the period

already undergone by him.



9.    At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment

of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan Gaikwad v.

State of Maharashtra AIR OnLine 2021 SC 743, wherein, in para 28,

following observations are made :
                                                       CriAppeal-558-2016
                                   -6-

      “28. Giving punishment to the wrong doer is the heart of the
      criminal justice delivery system, but we do not find any
      legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the
      trial court in meeting out the just punishment to the accused
      facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the charges.
      Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of this Court,
      it would appear that this Court takes into account a
      combination of different factors while exercising discretion
      in sentencing, i.e. proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation
      etc.”


10.    Very recently also, in the case of Amit Singla v. Union Territory

Chandigarh [Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2026 decided on

13.01.2026], the Hon’ble Apex Court, by taking into account long

passage of time without repeat offence, justified the same to be a

valid ground to reduce the jail term to the period already undergone.



11.    Similarly, again in the case of Israfil v. State of Madhya Pradesh

[MANU/SC/0647/2026] the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken identical

view that there was long gap and no repeat offence justifying

reduction of sentence.



12.    Here, alleged occurrence is of April 2015. Trial ended up in

conviction in 2016 and as such, almost a decade has passed since

judgment of conviction is looming large over the appellant. Sentence
                                                       CriAppeal-558-2016
                                     -7-

awarded by trial court is imprisonment for three and half years for

offence under Sections 326 of IPC and six months for offence under

Section 323 of IPC.. Statement is made across the bar that applicant

was behind bars for almost 18 months out of three and half years’

sentence and that, now relations are restored to normalcy and parties

being relatives of each other, are residing in peace and wish to

continue to do the same. Apparently, from above discussed evidence,

it is clear that including informant, very injured wife and their

daughter have resiled and have not supported prosecution. Therefore

is is clear indication that they no more desire conviction.



13.    Consequently in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, by maintaining the conviction accused can be let off on already

undergone sentence. Hence, following order :

                                    ORDER

I.    Criminal Appeal is hereby partly allowed.


II.   The conviction of the appellant by learned Additional Sessions
      Judge, Latur vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2016 in
      Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 for offences under Sections 323
      and 326 of IPC is hereby maintained, however, the sentence for
      offence under Section 326 of IPC is reduced to the period of
      imprisonment already undergone by the appellant and the fine
      imposed by the trial court.
                                                    CriAppeal-558-2016
                                  -8-



III. Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.


IV. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
      regarding disposal of muddemal.


VI. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed off.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre