VITHHAL S/O. TULSHIRAM JANJALversusSUKHDEO S/O. PUNDLIK JANJAL AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40354


                                               *1*                       6revn17o18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2019
                            VITHHAL S/O. TULSHIRAM JANJAL
                                           VERSUS
                      SUKHDEO S/O. PUNDLIK JANJAL AND OTHERS
                                               ...
                Shri Palodkar Devdatt P., Advocate for the Applicant.
                                               ...


                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 31 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.          By this revision application filed under Section 397

                of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/ original

                complainant is challenging the impugned judgment and order

                dated 17.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                Judge-2, Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2013,

                whereby, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal

                filed by the present applicant and confirmed the judgment and

                order of acquittal dated 28.12.2012 passed by the learned JMFC,

                Sillod, in RCC No.101 of 2004 whereby, the respondents/

                accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under

                Sections 143, 323, 504, 506, 447, 188 and 120-B of the Indian
                                  *2*                        6revn17o18


Penal Code.


2.            As per the prosecution story, the applicant/

complainant PW-2 was owner and in possession of agricultural

land at village Chinchpur and there is temporary injunction order

passed by the Court in his favour. Despite this fact, the accused

persons obstructed his possession and assaulted him and his

family members and they used to damage crops. It is alleged that

on 01.10.2003, the accused persons committed trespass in his

land and assaulted the complainant and also extended threats. It

is alleged that again on 06.10.2003 at about 06:30 in evening, the

accused committed trespass in his land and by hatching

conspiracy, assaulted the complainant and his son Hiraji PW-3 by

fist and kick blows. They also hurled abuses and damaged

standing crop. It is alleged that though the complainant tried to

lodge the police complaint, the police did not take cognizance.

Therefore, Criminal Writ Petition was filed before this Court and

it is only after directions of this Court, the complaint (exhibit 58)

was lodged with the Ajintha Police Station bearing Crime No.I-

69/2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(b),

188, 447, 143, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
                                 *3*                       6revn17o18


3.          After completion of investigation, the charge sheet

was filed. The learned JMFC framed the charge vide exhibit 29.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

prosecution examined five witnesses. The JMFC recorded the

statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. After hearing the parties and analyzing the

evidence brought on record, the learned JMFC acquitted the

accused persons. Being aggrieved by acquittal, the appeal is also

dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision.


4.          Mr. Palodkar, learned counsel for the applicant,

vehemently submits that the learned Appellate Court as well as

the learned Trial Court committed grave error of law in

acquitting the accused persons and dismissing the appeal.

According to him, the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused persons, and as such, the learned Trial Court as well as

the Appellate Court were required to convict the accused persons

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120-B, 188, 447,

333, 504 and 506 of the IPC. He further submits that the orders

passed by the learned subordinate courts suffer from incorrect

consideration of evidence and there is irregularity in procedure.
                                   *4*                        6revn17o18


He, therefore, submits that the instant Criminal Revision

Application be allowed.


5.           After perusing the impugned judgments and orders

passed by the learned Session Court as well as the Trial Court, it

is found that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod,

vide his order dated 28.12.2012, after recording the evidence of

about five prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused persons.

The order discloses that the PW-1 Tukaram, PW-2 Vitthal

(informant), PW-3 Hiraji (son of PW-2), PW-4 Bhausaheb (son

of PW-2), and PW-5 Uttamrao (investigation officer) have all

been properly examined, and the learned Trial Court, on the basis

of appropriate scrutiny of evidence, was pleased to acquit the

accused persons. The learned Session Court in appeal also found

that the learned Trial Court has committed no error in law. The

learned Sessions Judge also observed that the prosecution failed

to prove that the accused were members of unlawful assembly

and in furtherance of common object of such assembly,

voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and witnesses. On

perusal of both the orders, it is found that there is no illegality or

irregularity in the orders passed by the respective subordinate
                                  *5*                        6revn17o18


courts.


6.           The scope of the revisional jurisdiction is very

limited. The revision under Section 397 CrPC confers power on

the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the

correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order

passed by any inferior court. The High Court under its

jurisdiction under Section 397 cannot embark upon an in-depth

re-examination of oral evidence and come to conclusion contrary

to the consistent one reached by the two courts below. It is also

clear that normally it is not open for the High Court to interfere

with the concurrent findings of the courts below, specially by re-

appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. It is also

clear that the power under Section 397 is not to be resorted to if

there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the

grievance of the aggrieved party and it should be exercised very

sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice. The said power should not be

exercised as against the express bar of law. Thus, once again at

the cost of repetition, it is to be observed here that a Revisional

Court enjoys limited jurisdiction. Interference by entering into
                                         *6*                        6revn17o18


      merits and re-appreciating the entire evidence is improper and

      not permissible.


      7.           In view of the aforesaid observation, this Court finds

      that there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the orders passed

      by the learned lower courts. In that view of the matter, this Court

      is not inclined to entertain the instant Criminal Revision

      Application. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is

      dismissed.


kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )