NAMDEO HARIVHAU KALBANDE.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.

2026:BHC-AUG:46384


                                                                     CrAppeal-694-2016
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2016

                 .    Namdeo s/o. Haribhau Kalbande
                      Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
                      R/o. Domegaon, Tq.Ambad,
                      District Jalna.                             ….Appellant
                                                            (Orig. Accused No.3)

                            Versus

                 1.   The State of Maharashtra

                 2.   Shashikalabai Manikrao Ghule
                      Age: 51 yrs., Occu.: Agriculture,
                      R/o.Domegaon, Tq.Ambad,
                      District Jalna.

                 3.    Sushilabai Dhondiram Takwale
                       Age: 42 years, Occu.: Labour,
                       R/o. Domegaon, Tq.Ambad,
                       District Jalna.                           …..Respondent
                                                 …..
                 Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mr.V.V.Jahagirdar, APP for Respondent.
                 Mr.Sanjaykumar B.Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3
                 (Absent).
                                                 …..

                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on        : 01-10-2026
                                         Pronounced on      : 05-10-2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.   In this appeal, there is challenge to Judgment and order of

                 conviction dated 25-10-2016 rendered by learned Judge, Special
                                                       CrAppeal-694-2016
                                    -2-

Court, Jalna, in Special Case (Atr.) No.20 of 2014 recording guilt of

appellant for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC).



2.       Case of prosecution in trial Court was that, on 24-01-2014 she-

goats of accused no.3 entered the Jowar crop of informant, which was

objected, upon which, it is alleged that, accused no.3 hurled caste

abuses, caught hold of the her hand. When informant raised shouts,

her mother-in-law, sister-in-law came to her rescue, but accused no.3

hit them by means of stick. The above episode was reported to Police

who registered Crime bearing No.15 of 2014 for offence under

Sections 354A(i)(ii), 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC and under

Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

         After completion of investigation, accused nos.1, 2 and 3 were

duly chargesheeted for above offence and also tried by the learned

Judge, Special Court, Jalna, who on appreciating evidence adduced

by prosecution, convicted appellant/original accused No.3 alone only

for offence under Section 323 of the IPC and acquitted accused Nos.1

and 2 from all the charges. Hence, the appeal by convict.



3.       Learned counsel for appellant would point out that, there is
                                                    CrAppeal-694-2016
                                 -3-

false application.   According to him, prosecution has not proved

charges beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that, learned

trial Court has already disbelieved allegations and charge of caste

abuse, which was part of the same incident, however, same evidence

is applied for upholding guilt for offence under Section 323 of the

IPC. According to him, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence on

record.

      Learned counsel also submits that, in the alternative,

considering date of conviction, the date of hearing of the appeal and

as long period has been lapsed since Judgment and order of

conviction looming large over the head of appellant, he urges to

extend benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as

appellant has no criminal antecedent whatsoever.



4.    Learned APP opposed above submissions and he supports and

justifies the Judgment and order of conviction and prays to dismiss

appeal for want of merits.



5.    Perused the record. Admittedly, case of prosecution is rested

on evidence of as many as eight witnesses. Crucial evidence is of

informant PW1 Usha Hiraman Ghule, her mother-in-law PW2

Shashikalabai Manikrao Ghule, injured, her nephew PW3 Ganesh
                                                     CrAppeal-694-2016
                                 -4-

Dhondiram Takwale and PW4 Dr.Padma Durgesh Parhe, Medical

Expert.

      On carefully analyzing evidence of informant PW1 Usha at

Exhibit 16, it appears that she has deposed about occurrence dated

24-01-2014 i.e. when she-goats of accused no.3 Namdeo entered their

field and she claims to have asked him to remove the she-goats, upon

which it is alleged that accused hurled abuses on her caste.      She

stated that, he also caught hold of her hand and therefore, she raised

shouts attracting attention of her mother-in-law namely Shashikalabai

and sister-in-law namely Sushila. She also deposed that, accused hit

her mother-in-law on left hand and on the thigh and hand of sister-in

-law and occurrence was reported to Police.

      Nothing adverse has been brought in cross-examination of this

witness.



6.    PW2 Shashikalabai, injured, deposed at Exhibit 18 that while

she was in the house, hearing shouts of her daughter-in-law, she and

her daughter Sushila went towards field of Jowar and there, it is saw

that accused had caught hold of hand of informant. She deposed

that, accused hit her by stick on her left shoulder and gave blow of

the same on left knee of her daughter and they were taken to

Government hospital at Ambad.
                                                       CrAppeal-694-2016
                                   -5-

      Even nothing damaging has brought in her cross-examination.



7.    Likewise PW3 Ganesh, a child witness at Exhibit 20 deposed

that on 24-01-2014 at around 04:00 p.m., accused caught hold of

hand of his aunt PW1 and when his grandmother and mother went to

her rescue, he allegedly hit them with stick on shoulder and left leg

respectively.

      However, in cross-examination he answered that, on the date of

incident, he was at the school upto 04:30 p.m and he reached home

at 05:30 p.m. Therefore, his presence at the scene of occurrence is

doubtful as incident had taken place at around 04:00 p.m.



8.    Therefore, on appreciating evidence of PW1 informant and her

mother-in-law PW2, they are found to be consistent on the point of

accused hitting PW2 mother-in-law and her daughter Sushila with

stick. Their evidence has remained intact.

      Prosecution has adduced evidence of PW4 D3.Padma Durgesh

Parhe at Exhibit 23 and she narrated the numbers and nature of

injuries noted by her. She also identified certificates issued by her.

      Consequently, there is corroboration to testimony of PW1

informant and her mother-in-law PW2 from PW4 Medical Expert and

as such, prosecution evidence comprises of essential ingredients for
                                                      CrAppeal-694-2016
                                     -6-

attracting charge of Section 323 of the IPC and therefore, no fault can

be found on the part of the learned trial Court in recording conviction

of appellant for the said offence.



9.    Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, almost

ten years have been lapsed since the occurrence and benefit of the

Probation of Offenders Act may be extended.

      Considering the year of occurrence to be of 2014, trial to be

concluded in 2016 and finally appeal being heard in 2026, and more

particularly, taking into account the quantum of sentence of one

month awarded by learned trial Court and also taking into account

the fact that there are no criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined

to extend benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant.

Accordingly, following order is passed :

                                  ORDER

      I.     The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

      II.    The conviction awarded under Section 323 of the Indian
      Penal Code to the appellant Namdeo s/o. Haribhau Kalbande,
      in Special Case (Atr.) No.20 of 2014, by learned Judge, Special
      Court,     Jalna,    vide      Judgment   and     order    dated
      25-10-2016, is hereby maintained.

                   HOWEVER
                                                       CrAppeal-694-2016
                                    -7-

      III.     Instead of sentencing appellant to imprisonment, he is
      directed to be released on probation of good conduct by
      entering into a bond with one surety each to appear and receive
      the sentence when called upon during the period of one year.

      IV.      The bond for a period of one year shall be executed by
      him before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from
      today.


      V.       The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed off.




                                            [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



SPT