Bombay High Court
SYED ABBAS HUSAIN AHMED HUSAINversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The revision is dismissed as the evidence is insufficient to overturn the acquittal and the lower courts did not err.
Summary
The applicant, Syed Abbas Husain, filed a criminal revision challenging the acquittal of fourteen respondents in a case involving alleged assault, damage to property, and offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed that the trial court and the Sessions Court erred by not properly considering the testimony of an eye‑witness and that sufficient evidence existed to convict. The High Court first condoned a 190‑day delay in filing the revision and then examined the merits, noting inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of corroboration, and the inability of the prosecution to prove damage to the vehicle or specific identification of accused persons. The Court held that the evidence was not cogent enough to overturn the acquittals and that the lower courts had not committed any error. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, leaving the acquittal orders intact.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 190 days in filing a criminal revision can be condoned.
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to set aside the acquittal of the accused under the IPC offences alleged.
- Whether the trial court and Sessions Court erred in their appreciation of witness testimony and application of law.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal revision
- condonation of delay
- acquittal
- insufficient evidence
- IPC offences
- land dispute
- false implication
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38592
25.23appln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
43 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2023
IN/WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.39 OF 2023
SYED ABBAS HUSAIN AHMED HUSAIN
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2. Shaikh Mehaboob Shaikh Majid Qureshi
3. Shaikh Latif @ Taj Shaikh Nabi
4. Sayyed Toafiq Sayyed Yousuf
5. Shyam Sonaji Kadam
6. Sanjay Kaduba Kakade
7. Syed Ali @ Don Syed Hasan
8. Shaikh Daud Shaikh Maheboob
9. Eshwar Ashokrao Khare
10. Shaikh Jalil Abdul Ajij
11. Sayyed Ismail Sayyed Lal
12. Shaikh Rashid @ Mamu Shaikh Babu
13. Shaikh Latif Shaikh Maheboob Qureshi
14. Shaikh Majju Shaikh Maheboob Qureshi
15. Sayyed Abdul Gani Sayyed Munawar
…..
Mr S. S. Bora, Advocate for Applicant
Mr M. A. Aher, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Mr M. V. Ghatge, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 14
…..
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026
P. C. :
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2023
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 190
days caused in filing criminal revision application.
25.23appln
(2)
2. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed. Delay is condoned. Criminal Application stands disposed of.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.39 OF 2023
4. With consent of learned Advocates for the respective
parties, this revision application is taken up for final disposal.
5. The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated
11/03/2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2,
Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.80/2014, thereby dismissing his
appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, dated
18/06/2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Purna in Regular Criminal Case No.130/2011, wherein respondent
Nos.2 to 15 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code.
6. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the
applicant is informant and lodged report on 28/07/2010. It is stated
that the complainant and his family members i.e his parents are owners
25.23appln
(3)
of 26 Acres 30 Gunthas land in Survey No.149. There are dispute
about said land with Gangabai Deorao Kadam. Proceedings as regards
said dispute was filed before the Deputy Collector, Parbhani and the
same came to be decided against the informant. Therefore, the
informant preferred appeal before the M.R.T. on 17/04/2010.
According to applicant/informant, though the dispute was going on,
said Gangabai had entered her name in the revenue record. On the
basis of that entry, she alleged to have sold said land to respondents
herein. Therefore, the applicant has filed suit for injunction on
23/07/2010 and the status-quo was granted by the Court. It is further
alleged that, on 28/07/2010, at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m., aforesaid
purchasers (respondents herein) had come in their land Survey No.149
and started beating to servant of complainant. Accordingly, informant
and his father went to the spot with their Car bearing No.MH-22/H-
2934. It is alleged that the said purchasers/accused persons assaulted
them and also pelted stones on their car with intention to kill them.
Their car got damaged in the said incident. It is further stated that the
informant, in order to save himself had made fire in the air by revolver
and the accused persons ran away from the spot. Therefore, he lodged
report against accused persons bearing Crime No.134/2010 for the
offence punishable under aforesaid Sections.
25.23appln
(4)
7. After the investigation is complete, charge sheet came to
be filed against the accused persons/respondents herein. They came to
be prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purna.
After recording the evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
acquitted all the accused persons. The said order was challenged
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Parbhani. Learned
Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order dated
11/03/2022 and confirmed the judgment and order of the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, the applicant has
approached this Court by filing this revision application.
8. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, learned
Subordinate Courts have committed a grave error in acquitting the
accused persons. According to him, sufficient evidence was brought
before the Subordinate Courts. The testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5
and PW-6 have not considered in a proper perspective by the
Subordinate Courts. According to him, PW-3 is the eye witness,
whose testimony at all not been considered properly, and therefore, the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned Subordinate
Courts are required to be quashed and set aside. He further submits
that the offence registered against the accused persons have been made
out, and as such, learned Subordinate Court were required to convict
25.23appln
(5)
the accused persons. He, therefore prays for allowing the present
revision application.
9. Per contra, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 15
vehemently opposed the application. He supports the judgment and
order of the learned Subordinate and submits that the said judgments
are correct and no interference is required of this Court.
10. With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the
respective parties, I have gone through the order passed by both the
Subordinate Courts. PW-1/Sunil Dubekar and PW-2/Ravi Jaiswal are
the eye witnesses, however, they did not support the prosecution case.
PW-3 is applicant herein, who deposed that incident took place on
28/07/2010 and he received phone call from his servant who was at
Survey No.149. He alongwith his father and brother-in-law went there
by his car. According to him, when they entered into land, all the
accused persons surrounded around them and their vehicle, and started
to pelt stones. Therefore, the glasses of their car came to be damaged.
Thereafter, prosecution also examined Syed Ahmed Hussain (PW-6).
PW-5/Shaikh Azhar also deposed that when he was working in the
land at Survey No.149, at that time, 10 to 12 persons came there and
started beating him. He informed to PW-3/informant about incident.
25.23appln
(6)
PW-3 came in a vehicle which was damaged by the accused persons.
Learned Subordinate Courts observed that deposition of all the
witnesses about the injury to Shaikh Azhar (PW-5) are vague. It was
found that said PW-5 though claims to have assaulted by 10 to 12
persons, however, it was not specifically deposed as to which accused
beaten him and how he sustained injuries. Likewise, he did not
deposed as to which accused threatened to kill him. Therefore,
according to learned Subordinate Court, offences of causing hurt,
abusing and threatening to kill them could not be proved by the
prosecution. The prosecution witnesses also did not corroborate with
each other on account of how many accused persons were present at
the spot. According to PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6, around 150 to 200
persons were present, whereas as per statement of PW-5, only 10 to 12
persons were present at the spot.
11. Even learned Trial Court recorded finding that, while
recording spot panchnama, the prosecution could not point out any of
broken glasses on the spot, and therefore, learned Trial Court recorded
that prosecution could not prove that there was damage to the vehicle.
After recording aforesaid finding, learned Trial Court acquitted the
accused persons. Learned Sessions Court, while relying upon same
finding, also dismissed the appeal.
25.23appln
(7)
12. After careful reading of both the orders of the Subordinate
Courts, I find that learned Subordinate Courts have not committed any
error in passing the impugned orders. They considered the evidence in
a proper perspective. The prosecution witnesses have not clearly
established the fact pertaining to threatening to kill as well as
damaging of the car of PW-3. There is no cogent evidence against the
accused persons, and therefore, they came to be acquitted.
13. Moreover, there appears to be a dispute pending between
the parties, and hence, possibility of false implication of the accused
persons in this criminal case, cannot be ruled out. In that view of the
matter, I am not inclined to entertain this revision application and the
same, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
Checking your session…