SANTOSH DAMODHAR ARAGADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:41144


                                                                     CriAppeal-934-2023
                                                     -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.934 OF 2023

                 Santosh Damodhar Aragade
                 Age: 33 years, Occu.: Agri.,
                 Resident at Walujgaon, Tq. Gangapur,
                 District Aurangabad.                                   .. Appellant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station Officer,
                 Waluj, Taluka Kannad,
                 District Aurangabad.                                   .. Respondent

                                                  …
                 Mr. Vikram L. Bhange, Advocate h/f Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate
                 for the appellant.
                 Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for respondent/State.
                                                  ...

                                                   CORAM :   ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                   Reserved on : 04.09.2026
                                                   Pronounced on : 07.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-


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

                 conviction rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

                 Vaijapur dated 05.09.2023 in Sessions Case No.97 of 2019 recording

                 conviction to the appellant for offence under Section 353 and 332 of

                 Indian Penal Code [IPC].
                                                      CriAppeal-934-2023
                                  -2-

2.    According to prosecution, on 11.03.2016 around 10.30 p.m.,

when informant, a revenue officer and his team were on patrolling

duty, vehicle bearing No.MH-20-DE-7555 was intercepted and taken

to police station. Accused pulled informant from the vehicle and he

fell and suffered injury. He reported the incident to police and PW5,

who carried out investigation, charge-sheeted accused, who was duly

tried vide above Sessions Case. Trial ended up in conviction and

hence, this appeal.


3.    Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is false

implication. That, there is neither any credible evidence, nor there is

corroboration to the testimony of complainant from independent

witness. That, only interested witnesses are examined and as there

was no evidence to show that complainant was on official duty, the

charge of Sections 353 as well as 332 of IPC ought not to have been

applied. Attributing incorrect appreciation by trial Court, interference

is urged for.


4.    Learned APP justified the judgment and order of conviction by

pointing out that there is convincing and trustworthy evidence of

complainant PW1 finding support from independent witnesses PW7

and PW8. All witnesses are consistent about the overt act of accused.

There is no serious challenge to their testimonies. Medical expert
                                                     CriAppeal-934-2023
                                  -3-

confirm injury suffered by complainant and, therefore, he justifies the

judgment and order of conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal.


5.    Case of prosecution is rested on as many as eight witnesses.

Crucial evidence is of complainant PW1 and two eye witnesses PW7

and PW8 followed by the evidence of medical expert PW6.


6.    Re-appreciated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. PW1–

complainant has narrated whatever he stated in the complaint, to the

aforesaid extent, on the point of occurrence. There are testimonies of

PW7 and PW8 and these witnesses seem to be party to the squad,

which was headed by PW1. They laid support to the testimony of

PW1 on the point of vehicle being intercepted and it being taken to

police station and on the way, accused pulling down complainant, as

a result of which he fell and was required to be taken to the hospital.

PW6 is the medical expert, who deposed about examining

complainant and noticing abrasion injuries, which are simple in

nature.


7.    Thus, complainant’s evidence finds support from independent

witnesses as well as medical evidence. Though all above witnesses are

cross-examined, their evidence has remained unshaken on the point

of occurrence and it is not rendered doubtful on any count.
                                                    CriAppeal-934-2023
                                  -4-

8.    Therefore, as the prosecution story that the complainant was a

public servant and, while discharging his duty, was obstructed and

pulled down, causing him to fall and suffer injuries, is proved beyond

reasonable doubt, the case of the prosecution deserves to be accepted,

and the learned Trial Court has rightly done so.


9.    The learned Trial Court had admittedly extended the benefit of

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant, as he

qualified to receive the said benefit. No error or illegality has been

brought to the notice of this Court so as to warrant interference.

Hence, the following order is passed :-


                               ORDER


      I)     The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.


      II)    The conviction of the appellant – Santosh Damodhar

      Aragade awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

      Vijapur, District Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.97 of 2019

      dated 05.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections

      353 and 332 of IPC, is hereby confirmed.


      III)   The judgment and order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the

      learned Trial Court granting benefit of Section 4 of the
                                                     CriAppeal-934-2023
                                   -5-

      Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellant, is also

      confirmed and kept intact.


      (iv)   The appellant shall continue to abide by the terms and

      conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court while extending

      the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.


      (v)    The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the appellant shall

      stand continued for the period and on the terms as directed by

      the learned Trial Court.


      (vi)   The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.




                                         [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]



scm