SANJAY S/O. NANA AHIREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46595


                                                 *1*                     21revn276o18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 276 OF 2018
                                 SANJAY S/O. NANA AHIRE
                                           VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               ...
                Shri Desale Nilesh N., Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri V.M. Lomate, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                Mrs. Wadmare Sanghmitra, advocate for respondent No.2.
                                              ...

                                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                   DATE : 05 October 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.           Heard the learned advocates for the respective

                parties.


                2.           The applicant/ accused is challenging the impugned

                judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned

                Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Dhule,   in   Criminal Appeal

                No.87/2012 whereby, the said appeal came to be dismissed and

                the judgment and order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the learned

                JMFC, Sindkheda in RCC No.783/2009 came to be maintained.

                Vide the order dated 23.08.2012, the learned JMFC was pleased

                to convict the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections

                451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
                                *2*                      21revn276o18


suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of

Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one

month, for the offence u/s 451 and to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.3000/- and in

default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the

offence u/s 354.


3.           The learned advocate for the applicant submits that

the impugned judgments and orders passed by the learned

subordinate courts are patently illegal as the prosecution has not

established the guilt of the applicant. There is no independent

witness examined by the prosecution though the incident is

allegedly took place in broad day light in the house of the

informant. All witnesses examined by the prosecution are

interested witnesses. As such, the prosecution has failed to

establish the guilt of the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt.

The learned advocate, therefore, prays for allowing the instant

revision application.


4.           Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the State

strongly opposes the instant revision application. He submits that

the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have rightly
                                *3*                         21revn276o18


considered evidence on record in proper perspective. According

to the learned APP, what matters in the case of criminal

prosecution is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of

evidence. Thus, the evidence which is brought before the Trial

Court by the prosecution is sufficient enough to convict the

applicant for the alleged offences. There is no error or illegality

in the impugned orders. The learned APP further submits that this

Court, while sitting in revision under Section 397 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, is having very limited scope and such

revisional powers are to be exercised only to prevent miscarriage

of justice. Hence, the learned APP prays for dismissal of the

revision application.


5.           The   learned   advocate    for   respondent      No.2/

informant, while reiterating the submissions of the learned APP,

submits that the crime committed by the applicant is against the

woman and is very serious crime. Considering the concurrent

findings of the Courts below and the evidence brought on record

by the prosecution, the applicant does not deserve any leniency.

The learned advocate, therefore, prays for dismissal of the

revision application.
                                *4*                       21revn276o18


6.          After going through the impugned judgments passed

by the Courts below, it is evident that the applicant came to be

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 451 and

354 of the Indian Penal Code after considering the evidence

brought on record by the prosecution. In order to prove the guilt

of the applicant, the prosecution has examined four witnesses,

namely, the informant PW-1, PW-2 Ganesh Bhika Saindane, PW-

3 Kalu Pawar and PW-4 Manoj Pawar (panch witness). The

testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are corroborative with

each other. From the testimonies of these witnesses, it is clearly

discernible that the prosecution has established its case beyond

all reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned orders passed by the

Courts below are absolutely correct, proper and requires no

interference. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with

concurrent 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 the

witnesses, 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
                                 *5*                       21revn276o18


is found in the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that

there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Application.

Hence, the conviction needs to be maintained.


7.            However, so far as the question of sentence is

concerned, it is stated that the incident occurred in the year 2009.

The applicant is presently aged about 55 years and has no

previous criminal antecedents. The applicant has faced the

criminal proceedings for considerable period of about 17 years.

Having regard to the nature of the offences, the age and

antecedents of the applicant, the fact that the incident is of the

year 2009 and the long passage of time, I am of the view that the

substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the

applicant deserves to be modified. At the same time, the

conviction recorded by the Courts below does not warrant any

interference. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and in order to compensate the informant, the applicant is

directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)

to the informant by way of compensation as per Section 357 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The compensation amount shall

be paid to the informant on such deposit. Hence, the following
                                        *6*                      21revn276o18


      order:-


                                     ORDER


      (a)       The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

      (b)      The conviction of the applicant for the offences punishable
      under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code is
      maintained.

      (c)      The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon
      the applicant by the learned JMFC, Sindkheda, and confirmed by
      the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, is modified. In lieu
      of the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned
      Trial Court, the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-
      (Rupees Ten Thousand) by way of compensation to the
      informant.

      (d)      The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the learned
      Trial Court within a period of one month from today. On such
      deposit, the same shall be paid to the informant.

      (e)      In the event of failure on the part of the applicant to
      deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the
      amount shall be recoverable in accordance with law.

      (f)      The record and proceedings be returned to the concerned
      Court.



kps                               ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )