GANESH RAVSAHEB @ VILAS RAJOLE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:44232


                                              *1*                      26revn287o19


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 287 OF 2019
                         GANESH RAVSAHEB @ VILAS RAJOLE,
                       PARESH RAVSAHEB @ VILAS RAJOLE AND
                       RAVSAHEB @ VILAS PANDURANG RAJOLE
                                           VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
                         JANARDHAN SAHEBRAO NIMBALKAR
                                               ...
                Shri Sudarshan Salunke, advocate h/f Shri Shaikh Majit S.,
                Advocate for the Applicants.
                Mrs. Bharati B. Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                Shri Vrishab M. Patil, advocate h/f Shri Jadhav Satej S.,
                Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                               ...

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                  DATE : 28 September 2026
                P. C. :-

                1.          Heard.


                2.          The applicants/ original accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 are

                challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2019

                passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in

                Criminal Appeal No.9/2014 whereby, the conviction and

                sentenced imposed by the learned JMFC, Kopargaon, vide the

                impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2014 in RCC

                No.126/2005, came to be maintained and confirmed. Vide the

                impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2014, the learned
                                *2*                      26revn287o19


JMFC was pleased to convict the applicants/ accused Nos.1, 6

and 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34

of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for three months and pay fine of Rs.500/- each and

in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, for the

offence u/s 323 r/w 34. They are also sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and

in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the

offence u/s 324 r/w 34. Both the sentences are directed to run

concurrently.


3.          Shri Salunke, the learned advocate for the

applicants, submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the

learned Appellate Court have failed to consider evidence in

proper perspective. He has taken this Court to the evidence of the

witnesses and submitted that the witnesses have not corroborated

with each other and the prosecution has not established the

ingredients necessary for proving offences under Sections 323

and 324 beyond reasonable doubt against the applicants.

According to the learned advocate, the Trial Court as well as the

Appellate Court have not considered that there was no
                                 *3*                      26revn287o19


independent witness examined by the prosecution and all

witnesses are interested witnesses. The prosecution has failed to

prove the seizure of weapons. This aspect is totally neglected by

the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The prosecution

having failed to prove the seizure of weapon, goes to establish

that the applicants are innocent. Therefore, according to the

learned advocate, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court

have rendered the judgments on perverse findings. As such, both

the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed and set aside.


4.           During the course of hearing, an affidavit is filed on

behalf of the applicants in this Court. Relying on the said

affidavit, Shri Salunke further submits that applicant No.1 has

undergone 11 days of sentence, whereas applicant Nos.2 and 3

have undergone 7 days of sentence. Applicant No.2 Paresh is

suffering from severe disorder due to electric shock and

paralysis. Applicant No.3 is 74 years old and is also suffering

from paralysis. Therefore, in the alternative, the learned advocate

has prayed for extending benefits of the Probation of Offenders

Act to the present applicants.


5.           Per contra, the learned APP appearing for the State
                                  *4*                   26revn287o19


and the learned advocate appearing for the original complainant

strongly oppose the instant criminal revision application.

According to them, both the Courts below have considered the

evidence on record in proper perspective. The prosecution has

examined in all 11 witnesses during the trial. PW-2 (Pratibha)

and PW-3 (Manisha) are eyewitnesses, who are injured in the

incident and they are wife and daughter of the complainant PW-1

(Janardhan). Their injuries are also proved by medical evidence.

Testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 have been corroborated by other

witnesses as well as medical evidence. Apart from these

eyewitnesses, other witnesses examined by the prosecution are

independent witnesses and their testimonies are corroborated by

each other. By relying upon testimonies of the witnesses and

other evidence on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly

passed the impugned judgment. The learned Appellate Court has

also rightly confirmed the said judgment. Therefore, the

impugned judgments are required to be maintained being proper

and correct in the eyes of law.


6.           After hearing the learned advocates appearing for

the respective sides and perusing the impugned judgments, I find
                                *5*                      26revn287o19


that initially there were 07 accused, who were facing trial before

the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court acquitted accused

Nos.2 to 5 and convicted the present applicants/ accused Nos.1, 6

and 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w

34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted all the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

148, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the

offence punishable under Sections 37(1) r/w 135 of the Bombay

Police Act.


7.            On perusal of evidence of PW-1 complainant

Janardhan, it is evident that he has deposed that accused Nos.1, 6

and 7 i.e. present applicants armed with weapons have entered in

his house to assault him. Accused No.6 was armed with chain

and assaulted the complainant’s wife on her head. When PW-3

(daughter of the complainant) tried to rescue her mother, she is

also assaulted by chain. Thus, both the wife and the daughter of

the complainant sustained bleeding injuries. The accused also

assaulted PW-4 and PW-5. PW-2 to PW-5 have supported the

version of PW-1. Evidence of PW-7 doctor also goes to prove the

injuries suffered by the injured witnesses and therefore, medical
                                *6*                      26revn287o19


certificates at exhibits 76 and 77 are proved. With the aforesaid

evidence, it can be said that the prosecution has proved the

charge against the applicants beyond all reasonable doubt. The

concurrent findings of the Courts below do not suffer from

perversity or error.


8.           Having regard to the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 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 on record, this Court finds 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 judgments, I

am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant Criminal

Revision Application.


9.           However, the incident is of the year 2005. The

affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants indicates that the

applicants are suffering from different ailments. They have no
                                *7*                        26revn287o19


previous criminal antecedents. The offence, though proved, arose

out of a solitary incident and the applicants have already faced

the trial of criminal proceedings for considerable period. The

conviction is confined to Sections 323 and 324 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicants have already

undergone part of the sentence. The more serious charges

levelled against them, including Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 504

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, have not been proved and the

applicants have been acquitted of the same. Having regard to the

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

and the long passage of time, this Court is of the view that it

would be appropriate to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the

Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the following order:-


                            ORDER

      (a)   Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

      (b)   The conviction of the applicants for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned Trial Court and
confirmed by the learned Appellate Court, is maintained.

      (c)   However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment
imposed upon the applicants is modified. Instead of requiring the
applicants to undergo the substantive sentence of imprisonment,
                                       *8*                     26revn287o19


      the applicants are directed to be released on probation of good
      conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
      upon their entering into a bond with one surety each for a period
      of one year, to appear and receive sentence when called upon
      during the said period and, in the meantime, to keep peace and be
      of good behaviour.

               (d)   The applicants execute the aforesaid bonds before
      the learned Trial Court within four weeks from today.

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




kps                             ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )