Bombay High Court
CHETAN KOMALSING PARMAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is upheld as the evidence is deemed reliable and sufficient.
Summary
The appellants, Chetan and Yash Parmar, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, for assault under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the allegation that they beat a fire‑brigade driver who refused to take the vehicle to a fire‑affected wheat field. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds of lack of convincing evidence, absence of independent witnesses, and inconsistencies between the informant’s testimony and the medical injury certificate. The trial court had relied on the testimony of the informant, an independent eyewitness (PW5), and a medical officer’s report confirming bruises. On appeal, the High Court re‑appreciated the evidence, found the informant’s account credible, noted corroboration by the eyewitness and medical evidence, and held that no infirmity existed in the trial court’s findings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence of the informant, independent eyewitness, and medical officer is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Whether material omissions or false implication in the informant’s testimony warrant setting aside the conviction.
- Whether the injury certificate corroborates the alleged assault.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34
Subjects
- assault
- criminal appeal
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- evidence evaluation
- eyewitness testimony
- medical evidence
- conviction upheld
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38432
CriAppeal-704-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.704 OF 2024
1. Chetan Komalsing Parmar
Age: 49 years, Occu.: Labour,
2. Yash Chetansing Parmar
Age: 22 years, Occu.: Education,
Both R/o. Shindkheda
Tal. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule .. Appellants
Versus
. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Station,
In-charge Officer, Shindkheda
Police Station, Tq. Shindkheda,
District Dhule. .. Respondent
…
Mr. Chetan T. Jadhav, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for respondent/State.
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 24.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.08.2026
JUDGMENT :-
1. Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated
15.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in
Sessions Case No.97 of 2021 convicting the appellants for offence
under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [IPC].
CriAppeal-704-2024
-2-
2. In all, four accused were charge-sheeted, including the present
two appellants, on the premise that on 18.04.2021, the informant,
who was the driver of the fire brigade vehicle, was beaten by accused,
namely, Chetan and Yash, for refusing to take the vehicle to a site
where there was fire to the wheat crop. After the scuffle and beating,
the accused pushed the informant and also abused him in filthy
language. Therefore, the informant lodged a report, resulting in
registration of Crime No.56 of 2021 and leading to further
investigation and filing of the charge-sheet against the appellants and
two other accused.
3. The case was registered as Sessions Case No.97 of 2021 before
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, who
appreciated the evidence of in all seven witnesses and recorded the
guilt of appellants for offence under Section 323 of IPC.
4. Now, the challenge to the above judgment and order is
primarily on the ground that there is no convincing and legally
acceptable evidence on the point of occurrence. Secondly, there is no
independent witness and, there being false implication, it is submitted
that there are material omissions in the evidence of the informant and
that the allegations of assault do not tally with the injury certificate.
He, therefore, urged to set aside the impugned judgment and order
CriAppeal-704-2024
-3-
5. Learned APP would support the judgment and order of
conviction on the ground that there is convincing evidence of both the
informant as well as an independent eyewitness and further support
from the medical evidence.
6. Re-appreciated the evidence. P.W.1 Informant, who is
examined at Exhibit-18 stated that he works as a driver on the fire
brigade vehicle of Shindkhea Nagar Panchayat. According to him, on
18.04.2021 he received phone call from accused informing that there
is fire to the standing crop in the field and to come there. He claims to
have reached there and took the vehicle to the point and spot wherein
it was possible to take the vehicle, however, accused were insisting
the vehicle to be taken ahead. That time informant’s associate Ajay
Dodwe reached there and he claims that for not listening to them,
accused persons caught informant by his collar, whereas Yash gave
fist blows on head, back and ribs while other accused caught hold of
informant. For above occurrence, he lodged report, which he
identified at Exhibit-24.
While under cross-examination, there are questions about his
appointment in the Nagar Parishad, about the complaint being silent
regarding his possession of driving licence for heavy vehicle, and
about there being no entries in the logbook regarding the visit to the
CriAppeal-704-2024
-4-
spot. So much is the only material cross-examination.
7. PW5, seems to be an eyewitness, who is examined at
Exhibit-43. In paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of his examination-in-chief, he
narrated what he saw about accused assaulting the informant.
Nothing damaging has been brought in his cross-examination.
8. PW3 is the medical officer, who examined informant and
noticed bruise injury below the neck and he identified the certificate
Exhibit-40.
While under cross-examination, he answered that the said
injury is possible on account of a dash suffered by the door of the S.T.
Bus. He stated that there was no injury to the neck of the patient.
9. PW2 is the spot panch.
10. PW4 is the officer of Nagarpanchayat, but he is not an eye
witness. However, he deposed about noticing injury mark on the
person of informant and accompanying him to the police station.
11. Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence, there is no
reason to disbelieve or doubt the testimony of informant, which finds
support from the independent eyewitness regarding the injury, i.e.
medical evidence, which has remained unshaken. Therefore, this
CriAppeal-704-2024
-5-
Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the
learned Trial Court recording conviction.
ORDER
I. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
II. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions
Case No.97 of 2021, is hereby maintained.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
scm
Checking your session…