KARUNA SIDDHESHWAR URGUNDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37208


                                                *1*                      18appln26o20


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2020
                           KARUNA SIDDHESHWAR URGUNDE
                                      VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                              ...
                Shri Adgaonkar Ravibhushan P., Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                                              ...


                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 17 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.          By this revision application, the applicant/ informant

                challenges the judgment and order dated 30.12.2019 passed by

                the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Appeal

                No.23/2017 by which, the appeal filed by the applicant/

                informant came to be dismissed. The said appeal was filed

                against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2015 passed by the

                learned JMFC, Latur, in STCC No.2148/2015 convicting the

                accused for the offence under Section 504 read with Section 34

                of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting them for the offences

                punishable under Sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 read with
                                 *2*                      18appln26o20


Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.


2.          Learned advocate for the applicant submits that both

the Courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the

accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294,

323, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned

orders of acquittal are perverse and are passed without

appreciating evidence in proper perspective. The revision is

required to be allowed and the accused are liable to be convicted.


3.          Learned APP submits that appropriate order may be

passed in the light of evidence on record.


4.          With the help of learned advocate for the applicant

and the learned APP, I have perused the impugned orders. The

learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, was pleased

to observe that evidence recorded by the Trial Court has been

properly appreciated and no error was found in the order passed

by the Trial Court. It is also observed by the learned Sessions

Judge that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.

The witnesses and particularly husband and wife have stated

different versions about the incident. As the learned Sessions

Judge found that the witnesses have not supported the
                                 *3*                       18appln26o20


prosecution case, the appeal preferred by the applicant came to

be dismissed.


5.           It is stated that the learned JMFC had directed the

accused persons to deposit fine amount of Rs.1000/- each while

convicting them under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The

said fine amount is deposited by the accused persons. As such,

the order has been complied with.


6.           Having carefully considered the evidence on record

and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court as well as the

learned Appellate Court, I find that the findings recorded by the

Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence.

The material contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses create reasonable doubt

regarding the allegations constituting the offences for which the

accused have been acquitted. The view taken by the Courts

below is a possible and reasonable view of the evidence. It

cannot be said that the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or

based on no evidence. This Court, while exercising revisional

jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own view merely because

another view of the evidence may also be possible. No
                                     *4*                    18appln26o20


      jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated

      warranting interference with the impugned orders. The Criminal

      Revision Application is dismissed.




kps                           ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )