BABURAO S/O. BHIKAJI SABLE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:39610


                                                 *1*                     28revn182o17


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 182 OF 2017
                               BABURAO BHIKAJI SABLE,
                                AMOL SURESH MALKAR,
                             LAKHANLAL RAMLAL KUKLARE,
                                         AND
                                SANJAY POPAT HANDORE.

                                            VERSUS

                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                Shri Ghulepatil Amol P., Advocate for the Applicants.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                                               ...

                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 31 August 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.           The   applicants/   accused   are   challenging    the

                impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the

                learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad, in Criminal

                Appeal No.79/2013 whereby, the appeal preferred by the

                applicants/ accused challenging the judgment and order of

                conviction    dated 08.03.2013 passed by the learned JMFC,

                Aurangabad, in RCC No.208/2013, came to be dismissed. Vide

                the conviction dated 08.03.2013, the applicants came to be

                convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 332,
                               *2*                      28revn182o17


427   r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been

sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of one month for the

offence under Section 143 r/w 149; Rigorous Imprisonment of

six months for the offence under Section 332 r/w 149; and

Rigorous Imprisonment of one month for the offence under

Section 427 r/w 149. All sentences are directed to run

concurrently.


2.          The applicants/ accused along with other accused

came to be prosecuted in view of the report exhibit 40 dated

10.10.2011 lodged by the informant (Sayyad Imam) PW-1, who

was working as Junior Operator in the Electricity Department at

Waluj. On 09.10.2011 at about 10:50 hours, there was breakdown

of electricity supply and therefore, the informant informed this

fact to his superior i.e. Junior Engineer, who sent two Wireman

for patrolling to ascertain where the fault took place. At about

11:30, mob of around 30 to 35 persons came to the office where

the informant alone was working and the said mob was angry

and asked the informant as to why electricity supply has been

discontinued. It is alleged that the present applicants/ accused

were also part of the said mob. The informant told them that due
                                *3*                      28revn182o17


to technical issue, supply is disconnected and the Wireman have

been already deployed to check the fault. It is alleged that there

was altercation between the mob and the informant. The

informant alleged that the accused persons by forming unlawful

assembly damaged the property of the Electricity Department

and also mishandled the informant. The mob also alleged to have

assaulted and abused the informant. Accordingly, the informant

reported the incident to the Police Station. On the basis of the

report, Crime No.I-230/2011 was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 353, 323, 143, 147, 427, 504 and 332

of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.


3.          After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet

was filed. The charge was framed and evidence came to be

recorded. After recording statement of the accused under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing the

learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned JMFC

has convicted the accused persons as stated above. Being

aggrieved, the applicants filed the criminal appeal, which also

came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order.

Hence, the instant revision application. The accused (Shesherao
                                *4*                       28revn182o17


Deorao Kuber), who was also convicted along with the present

applicants,   had filed separate Criminal Appeal No.68/2013,

which came to be allowed vide the judgment and order dated

13.08.2026 and he has been acquitted.


4.            Learned advocate for the applicants submits that

both the courts below have not considered evidence in proper

perspective and proceeded to convict the applicants/ accused on

the basis of sole testimony of the complainant, who is working as

Junior Operator in the Electricity Department. Learned advocate

for the applicants specifically points out that during the pendency

of the instant revision application, co-accused, namely,

Shesherao Kuber came to be acquitted in Criminal Appeal

No.68/2013 vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2026 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, on the same piece of

evidence. Thus, according to the learned advocate, the present

applicants/ accused are also deserve to be acquitted.


5.            Learned advocate for the applicants/ accused took

this Court through deposition of witnesses. The prosecution has

examined four witnesses i.e. PW-1 complainant, PW-2 and PW-3

are Wireman, who had gone at the relevant time to ascertain the
                                *5*                      28revn182o17


fault and PW-4 is the Investigating Officer. According to the

learned advocate for the applicants, from bare perusal of

evidence of PW-1, it would reveal that the complainant himself

has not supported the case of prosecution. There are various

omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the complainant.

There is no corroboration in the evidence of the witnesses.

Except PW-1, other witnesses are not present in the office when

the alleged incident took place and therefore, their testimony

cannot be relied upon. According to the learned advocate for the

applicants, the complainant PW-1 has virtually failed to identify

the accused persons, particularly when there is admission that the

mob of 30 to 35 persons came to the office. In the absence of

specific identification of the accused persons and further in the

absence of specific role having been performed by the accused

persons, the conviction order passed by the Courts below cannot

be said to be correct and proper. Thus, learned advocate for the

applicants/ accused prays for quashing and setting aside the

impugned conviction.


6.          Per contra, the learned APP opposed the revision

application. He submits that there is sufficient evidence brought
                                 *6*                        28revn182o17


by the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused persons before

the Trial Court. The orders passed by the Courts below are

correct and proper and requires no interference. Hence, learned

APP prayed for dismissal of the revision.


7.           After hearing the learned advocates for the

respective parties and going through the record, it is clear that the

prosecution sought to prove the case on the basis of testimony of

the sole eyewitness i.e. complainant PW-1. Bare perusal of the

testimony of the complainant PW-1 would indicate that he has

not specifically stated the role attributed to the accused persons.

He has not stated about specific role performed by the accused

persons. The prosecution has not conducted test identification

parade. The prosecution, during the course of investigation, also

not seized torn clothes of the complainant PW-1. Other witnesses

have not supported the version of PW-1. Therefore, conviction

cannot be based on such weak piece of evidence. The

prosecution has admittedly not proved the case beyond

reasonable doubt. Moreover, on the basis of same piece of

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal

No.68/2013 has acquitted the co-accused Shesherao Kuber who
                                         *7*                      28revn182o17


      was facing the same charge out of the same incident. In that view

      of the matter, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and

      set aside and the applicants/ accused deserve to be acquitted.

      Hence, I pass the following order:


                                     ORDER
      (i)      The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

      (ii)     The impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2017
      passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad,
      in Criminal Appeal No.79/2013 as well as the judgment and
      order of conviction order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the learned
      JMFC, Aurangabad, in RCC No.208/2013, are quashed and set
      aside.

      (iii)    The applicants /accused are acquitted of the offences with
      which they were charged.

      (iv)     The applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled
      and the surety, if any, stands discharged.

      (v)      The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to the
      applicants/ accused.

      (vi)     The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
      Court.




kps                               ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )