SUBHASH KARBHARI NIKAM AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38651


                                                                            208.06revn
                                                  (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      63 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 208 OF 2006

                                 SUBHASH KARBHARI NIKAM
                               RAMCHANDRA KARBHARI NIKAM
                                          VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 …..
                 Mr S. S. Panale, Advocate for Applicants
                 Mr M. A. Aher, APP for Respondent/State
                                                 …..

                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                            DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          Heard learned Advocate Mr Panale for the applicants and

                 learned APP Mr Aher for respondent/State.


                 2.          These revision applicants are challenging the impugned

                 judgment and order dated 28/06/2006, passed by the learned I st Ad-

                 hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal

                 No.186/2004. Vide the said impugned judgment, the learned Sessions

                 Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the sentence, thereby

                 sentencing appellant No.1/Subhash Karbhari Nikam to suffer simple

                 imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to

                 pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Learned Sessions
                                                            208.06revn
                                 (2)

Judge further sentenced appellant No.2/Ramchandra karbhari Nikam

to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.250/-,

in default to pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 07 days.

Learned Sessions Court, vide the aforesaid order, partly allowed the

criminal appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 03/11/2004,

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaijapur, Dist.

Aurangabad in RCC No.52/1996, wherein the appellant and other

accused persons were prosecuted for offences punishable under

Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.


3.          The aforesaid prosecution was on the basis of report dated

07/07/1996 bearing Crime No.51/1996, lodged by the informant

PW-1/Navnath Nikam with Shivoor Police Station.             After the

investigation is complete, the accused persons came to be tried before

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaijapur. The prosecution

examined four witnesses as PW-1/Navnath Nikam, complainant; PW-

2/ Dadekhan Pathan, panch witness; PW-3/Anusayabai Nikam, eye

witness and PW-4/Haribhau Nikam, injured witness. After recording

the evidence of the these witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under

Section 324, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal
                                                             208.06revn
                                   (3)

Code and sentenced appellant No.1/Subhash to suffer simple

imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to

pay fine, to suffer further imprisonment of 15 days and also sentenced

to appellant No.2/Ramchandra and one other accused, namely

Devchand Karbhari Nikam to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month and to pay fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine, to

suffer further imprisonment for seven days. It is pointed out that

accused/Devchand Karbhari Nikam has expired during the pendency

before the learned Sessions Court and therefore, appeal against him

came to be abated.


4.           Learned Sessions Court, after hearing the learned

Advocates for the parties, partly allowed the appeal thereby sentencing

the accused persons as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said order of

learned Sessions Court, the appellants have approached this Court

Court by filing this revision application.


5.           Mr Panale, learned Advocate for the applicants submits

that the learned Subordinate Courts have arrived at a conclusion only

on the basis of presumptions, conjectures and surmises and they have

not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. According to

him, the Subordinate Courts have not appreciated the fact that there
                                                                208.06revn
                                   (4)

was   long standing dispute        between    the   family of     present

applicants/accused persons, complainant and prosecution witnesses,

relating to boundaries of their fields. He further submits that perusal

of the deposition of the witnesses reveals that the appellants cannot be

convicted for the charges levelled against them.


6.           He further submits that the Subordinate Courts have failed

to appreciate that, in order to prove offences against the applicants, the

prosecution has not examined Medical Officer to prove medical

certificate. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and

orders of both the Subordinate Courts suffer from gross illegality and

therefore, they are liable to be quashed and set aside.


7.           Per contra, learned APP Mr Aher for the respondent/State

supports the judgment of learned Sessions Court. He submits that the

testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 show that the applicants/accused have

committed aforesaid offence. He further submits that, since PW-1 and

PW-4 are eye witnesses, there being direct evidence and there is no

need to rely upon medical certificate to prove the medical injuries

separately by examining the Medical Officer. He further submits that

the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses inspires confidence so as to

hold the accused persons responsible for injuries caused to victim.
                                                              208.06revn
                                     (5)

According to him, the impugned orders passed by the learned

Subordinate Courts are correct and proper and require no interference

of this Court. He further submits that, even in absence of recording

evidence of Medical Officer, no prejudice caused to the accused

persons. He then submits that the evidence is sufficiently brought on

record by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the

present revision application.


8.           After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

parties and going through the record available with the Court, it is

clear that the applicants were being prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a report lodged by PW-1

Navnath.    There appears to be a long standing dispute between

appellants and complainant pertaining to boundaries between their

fields. The alleged incident of assaulting appears to have caused due

to quarrel took place between the parties and in that quarrel, injuries

alleged to have been caused to the victim.


9.           After going through the evidence, it appears that the

prosecution has sufficiently established the guilt of the accused before

the Subordinate Courts.         The judgment delivered by the learned
                                                              208.06revn
                                  (6)

Subordinate Courts cannot be said to be perverse, as it has applied

correct proposition of law. After considering the evidence on record,

learned Sessions Court, while deciding the appeal, has rightly observed

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons, and

therefore, the Sessions Courts have committed no error while passing

the impugned judgment and orders. In that view of the matter, the

impugned judgment and orders of the learned Subordinate Courts are

required to be maintained, as there is not illegality in the same.

However, on the point of sentence, there is no propriety in sending the

accused persons to jail after a period of almost 30 years. Instead, the

accused can be granted benefits of protection under provisions of the

Probation of Offenders Act.


10.         Having regard to the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with findings of

fact unless the findings are shown to be perverse, manifestly

erroneous, illegal or resulting in miscarriage of justice.          On

independent consideration of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-4, I find

that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence

available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly

illegal. As no illegality and perversity is found in the impugned
                                                             208.06revn
                                  (7)

judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant

Criminal Revision Application.


11.         However, the incident is of the year 1996. The applicants

are presently aged near about 70 years and, as stated, have no previous

criminal antecedents. The offence, though proved, arose out of a

solitary incident and the applicants have already faced the ordeal of

criminal proceedings for a considerable period. Having regard to the

nature of the offences, the age and antecedents of the applicants and

the long passage of time, I am of the view that it would be appropriate

to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Hence, I pass the following order:-


                               ORDER

      (a) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.


      (b) The conviction of the applicants for the offences punishable

      under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of

      the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, the substantive

      sentence imposed upon the applicants is modified and, instead of

      sentencing them at once to any punishment, they are

      directed to be released on probation of good conduct under the

      Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
                                                            208.06revn
                                 (8)


      (c) The applicants shall enter into a bond with one surety each

      for one year to receive the sentence when called upon during the

      above period and in the meantime, maintain peace and good

      behaviour.

      (d)   Record and proceedings be returned to the Trial Court.




                                   [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk