RAHUL S/O NARHARI SAWANT AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:42920


                                                                     CrAppeal-698-2016
                                                 -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2016

                 1)   Rahul S/o Narhari Sawant
                      Age: 28 years, Occu.: Labour,
                      R/o.: Ukkadgaon (Makka),
                      Tq.Sonpeth, District Parbhani.

                 2)   Narhari S/o Dnyanoba Sawant
                      Age: 53 years, Occu.: Labour,
                      R/o. : As above.

                 3)   Kamalbai W/o Narhari Sawant
                      Age : 48 years, Occu.: H.H. & Labour,
                      R/o. As above.

                 4)   Chhaya W/o Rahul Sawant
                      Age: 23 years, Occu.: H.H. & Labour,
                      R/o.: As above.                             ….Appellants
                                                                  (Orig. Accused)
                            Versus

                 .    The State of Maharashtra
                      Through Police Station Sonpeth,
                      Tq.Sonpeth, District Parbhani.             …..Respondent
                                                …..
                 Mr.Amol Anantrao Jagatkar, Advocate for Appellants.
                 Mrs.Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent.
                                                 …..

                                        CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                        Reserved on          : 21-09-2026
                                        Pronounced on        : 22-09-2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.   Appellants, convicts for offence under Section 323 read with

                 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) hereby challenge judgment
                                                     CrAppeal-698-2016
                                    -2-

and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed

dated 04-04-2016, in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2013.


2.    Before trial Court, case of prosecution against present

appellants/original accused was that, on 11-02-2013 at around 07:30

a.m., Santosh was beaten by accused persons for keeping evil eye on

the wife of accused No.1 Rahul. There was beating by means of waist

belt. At around 04:00 to 04:30 p.m. Santosh hanged himself and

therefore, on report of brother of deceased, Crime bearing No.6 of

2013 was registered at Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani, for

offence under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC.

      Trial was conducted and on appreciating oral and documentary

evidence, learned trial Court was pleased to acquit appellant accused

from charges under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC,

but convicted them for charge under Section 323 read with 34 of the

IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one month

and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each.

      Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has been

preferred.


3.    Learned counsel for appellants would submit that, there is false

implication. According to him, there was no occurrence as alleged on
                                                     CrAppeal-698-2016
                                  -3-

11-02-2013. That, there is no independent witness and prosecution

has adduced evidence of only interested witnesses. That, there are

variance and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution

witnesses. Lastly, he submitted that, except accused Nos.1 and 4, all

are now around 60 years of age.          That, they have no criminal

antecedents.   That, accused No.1 has already undergone 10 days

imprisonment. Hence, in the alternative, he prays that they be let off

by extending benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act.


4.    Learned APP supported Judgment of learned trial Court by

submitting that, all prosecution witnesses are consistent on the roles

of accused and she justifies the conviction.


5.    Heard. Re-appreciated entire evidence.


6.    It seems that in the trial Court, prosecution case rests on

evidence of eight witnesses i.e. PW1 Amol Digambar Giri, brother of

deceased Santosh, his mother PW2 Dhondubai Digambar Giri, wife of

deceased PW3 Savita Santosh Giri, uncle of deceased PW4 Bapu

Gangagir Giri, Pancha to recovery memo PW5 Sambhaji Ram Bharti,

PW6 Bhagwan Dattatraya Kapkar is the Investigating Officer, PW7

Kishan Gopinath Bahirwad is the PSO, PW8 Dr.Harsha Chidri, is the

Medical Officer.
                                                     CrAppeal-698-2016
                                 -4-

7.    After examining the record and evidence, it emerges that

alleged occurrence was of early morning of 11-02-2013 with deceased

Santosh. He allegedly committed suicide at around 04:00 to 04:30

p.m. by hanging himself.     Therefore, on complaint, accused were

chargesheeted for offence under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read

with 34 of the IPC. However, learned trial Court has acquitted all

accused from charges under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with 34 of

the IPC. There is no challenge to the same by the State and therefore,

acquittal has remained intact.


8.    In support of its case about assault on deceased Santosh,

prosecution has adduced evidence of brother, mother, wife and uncle

of deceased.    Their evidence is at Exhibit Nos.22, 24, 30 and 31

respectively.   On going through their examination-in-chief, it is

noticed that they all are consistent about occurrence taking place on

11-02-2013 at around 07:00 to 07:30 a.m., accused No.1 Rahul

questioning Santosh for staring at his wife and beating him by means

of waist belt and brother, wife and mother of Santosh went to his

rescue. PW3 Wife and PW1 brother of the deceased Santosh are also

deposing about accused assaulting Santosh by catching his hairs.

Similarly PW4 uncle of deceased, who has intervened and separated

quarrel, has deposed that accused persons beat Santosh.
                                                     CrAppeal-698-2016
                                 -5-

      Therefore, as regards to beating is concerned all prosecution

witnesses are consistent. Their testimony to that extent has remained

undisturbed inspite of searching cross.    Therefore, offence under

Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC is indeed made out by

prosecution.


9.    Learned counsel for appellants would point out that, occurrence

is of 2013 and almost 13 years have been lapsed since occurrence.

That, accused No.1 has already suffered 10 days imprisonment out of

sentence awarded to him. That, there being no misuse of liberty or

no untoward incident thereafter, he urges for extending benefit of

Probation of Offenders Act.


10.   On going through the record, it seems that, apparently incident

is of 11-02-2013. Conviction is rendered by the learned trial Court in

2016. Appeal is heard in 2026 i.e. after almost 13 years. Sentence

awarded by learned trial Court is only of simple imprisonment for one

month and accused No.1 has already suffered 10 days imprisonment.

There is no reported criminal antecedents or any untoward incident

after release on bail. Therefore, considering the above discussion and

that judgment of conviction looming large over accused for more than

13 years, and also taking into account the quantum of sentence
                                                        CrAppeal-698-2016
                                    -6-

awarded by the learned trial Court, benefit of Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act deserves to be awarded.          Accordingly,

following order is passed :

                                 ORDER

      I.       The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

      II.      The conviction awarded under Section 323 read with
      Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellant Nos.(1)
      Rahul Narhari Sawant (2) Narhari Dnyanoba Sawant (3)
      Kamalbai Narhari Sawant and (4) Chhaya Rahul Sawant, in
      Sessions Trial No.31 of 2013 by learned Additional Sessions
      Judge,      Gangakhed,    vide      Judgment   and   order   dated
      04-04-2016, is hereby maintained.

                     HOWEVER

      III.     Instead of sentencing appellants to imprisonment, they
      are 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
      them 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