UTTAM S/O. DHONDIBA TELANG AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46347


                                                                            250.19revn
                                                  (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      913 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2019

                            UTTAM S/O. DHONDIBA TELANG AND ANR
                                          VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 …..
                 Mr V. A. Chavan, Advocate h/f Mr V. P. Golewar, Advocate for
                 Applicants
                 Mr M. A. Aher, APP for Respondent/State
                                                …..

                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 01st OCTOBER, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          Heard Mr Chavan, learned Advocate h/f Mr Golewar,

                 learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP for the

                 respondent/State.


                 2.          The applicants are challenging the impugned judgment

                 and order dated 23/08/2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions

                 Judge, Nanded in Criminal Appeal No.27/2006, whereby learned

                 Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal challenging

                 judgment and order of conviction dated 16/10/2006, passed by the

                 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Nanded in R.C.C.

                 No.509/1999. Vide the said judgment and order dated 16/10/2006, the
                                                               250.19revn
                                   (2)

applicants came to be convicted for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine

of Rs.1000/-, in default to pay fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

ten days. They were further convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-,

in default to pay fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days.

Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. Applicant

No.1/Uttam Dhondiba Telang is accused No.2 whereas applicant

No.2/Nivrutti Khandu Shrirame is accused No.4.



3.          The prosecution case is as under :-


            One Kamaji Shrirame, father of complainant was having

house property at Hudco, Nanded and was serving as a Conductor in

S.T. Department. He was suffering from cancer since 1994, due to

which he died on 27/09/1997. After his death, the informant and his

mother had been to their own village for cultivation of their

agricultural land. Before proceeding to their village, they handed over

key of house property at Hudco to appellant No.1/Uttam Dhondiba
                                                             250.19revn
                                  (3)

Telang as he was residing adjacent to their house. Said Uttam was

son-in-law of accused No.1/Shankar Bhimrao Gaikwad. It is also

came to be alleged by complainant that they sold the said house

property situated at Hudco to one Virbhadra Menkudale on

09/10/1998. Therefore, complainant had been to house of present

applicant No.1/Uttam and demanded the key of the house. However,

appellant No.1/Uttam informed them that he will return the key on

30/10/1998. When again complainant had been to house of Uttam and

again demanded the key, Uttam avoided and told him that key is with

accused No.1 i.e. his father-in-law/Shankar Bhimrao Gaikwad.

Complainant went to accused No.1/Shankar and demanded the key.

At that time, said Shankar alleged to have shown one bond paper and

informed him that father of complainant namely Kamaji had already

sold the said house property to him. Upon learning that the accused

persons in collusion with each other had prepared a false deed to grab

property, the complainant filed a written complaint before the Police

Station, Nanded (Rural) against the six accused persons for the offence

punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1/Shankar who is father-in-law of

accused No.2/Uttam, alleged to have purchased property from Kamaji.

Accused No.2/Uttam, son-in-lw of accused No.1.                Accused
                                                           250.19revn
                                 (4)

No.3/Shivaji Hanmanta Shrirame is also alleged to have abetted the

crime. Accused No.4/Nivrutti Khandu Shrirame who is appellant No.2

as well as signatory on the sale deed as witness.           Accused

Nos.5/Kachraji Bhimaji Kokre and accused No.6/Bhanudas Maroti

Gaikwad. After the investigation is complete, charge-sheet came to be

filed against the accused persons and they were came to be tried.

During the course of evidence, the prosecution has examined as many

as nine witnesses. After recording the evidence, the learned JMFC

acquitted accused Nos.3, 5 and 6. However, accused No.1/Shankar

Bhimrao Gaikwad, accused No.2/Uttam Dhondiba Telang and accused

No.4/Nivrutti Khandu Shrirame came to be convicted and sentenced as

aforesaid.


4.           Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of

conviction, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 approached before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge by filing Criminal Appeal No.27/2006.

During the pendency of said criminal appeal, accused No.1/Shankar

was expired. Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed

the said appeal of accused Nos.2 and 4, thereby maintaining the

conviction imposed upon them by the learned JMFC.
                                                                  250.19revn
                                    (5)

5.           Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of

dismissal of criminal appeal, Accused Nos.2 and 4 approached this

Court by filing instant revision application challenging the said

impugned judgment and order.


6.           Mr Chavan, learned Advocate holding for Advocate Mr

Golewar for the applicants submits that both the learned Courts below

have not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective

and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures, passed the

impugned judgment and orders of conviction and sentence. He further

submits that learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court

have   not   considered     the   fact    that   complainant/Shivaji    had

compromised     the     civil   dispute   between     him   and    accused

No.1/Shankar, in view of which, the grievance against applicants does

not survive. He then submits that the prosecution has failed to prove

beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed aforesaid

offence of cheating and preparing the false documents. He further

submits that the applicants are not beneficiaries of house property and

the main accused in whose favour the house property was sold is

already expired.      The evidence brought before the Court by the

prosecution as regards cheating and preparing false documents is also
                                                             250.19revn
                                  (6)

not sufficient to establish guilt of the accused. Therefore, he submits

that the impugned judgments and orders are perverse and not in

accordance with law and thus, prays for quashing and setting aside the

same.


7.          Per contra, learned APP opposes the instant criminal

revision application. He submits that the prosecution has established

the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. He then

submits that there are as many as nine witnesses who came to be

examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

He submits that PW-2/Anand Ramchandra Jadhav, who came to be

examined at Exh.50 who is a neighbour of complainant and

PW-3/Laxman Monaji Mahabale is a bond writer, whose evidence is at

Exh.55. The said Laxman Mahabale as per the prosecution supported

the complainant by stating that the accused persons had been to him on

given date and time, and as per the their instructions, he had written

the said bond paper. PW-5/Deelip Mahabale, who is examined at

Exh.73 had corroborated the testimony of PW-3/Laxman Mahabale.

The evidence as regards PW-7/Purushottam Rajaram Dhotre, who is a

handwriting expert, is at Exh.95 to prove signature of the appellant

No.1 on the purported false documents. With the said quality of
                                                                250.19revn
                                   (7)

evidence, according to Mr Aher learned APP, the prosecution has

established the case, so as to convict the applicants. Thus, according

to him, learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court have

rightly convicted the applicants and there is no illegality or irregularity

in the said judgments and order and the said judgment and orders

required to be maintained. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the

instant revision application.


8.           After hearing the learned Advocate for the respective

sides, and going through the evidence brought on record, it is found

that there is concurrent finding against the applicants. The prosecution

has examined nine witnesses, whose evidence found to be trustworthy

by the leaned Trial Court.       No legal ground has been raised to

disbelieve the testimonies of the said witnesses. On the contrary, all

the witnesses have supported the prosecution to establish the guilt of

accused persons. More particularly, evidence of PW-7, who is

handwriting expert, who proved the signature not only of Kamaji,

father of complainant, but also signature of accused Uttam on the said

documents as witness.


9.           The scope of this Court's power under Section 397 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. In numerous judgments, the
                                                                250.19revn
                                   (8)

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where there are concurrent findings

against the applicant, the revisional Court must exercise its jurisdiction

sparingly, and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In the instant

matter, I do not find any perversity in the judgments of the Courts

below.   Hence, the instant revision application is dismissed.        The

conviction imposed upon the applicants is hereby maintained.

However, instead of sending them to jail to serve the full term of

imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court, their sentence is reduced to

the period already undergone in prison.




                                     [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk