MADHAVRAO VISHWANATH WAGALGAVE DIED THROUGH HIS LRS. SAMPAT MADHAVRAO WAGALGAVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41241




                                                 -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      919 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 288 OF 2019

               MADHAVRAO VISHWANATH WAGALGAVE DIED THROUGH HIS LRS.
                           SAMPAT MADHAVRAO WAGALGAVE
                                     VERSUS
                      THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

              Mr.A.V.Indrale Patil, Advocate for the Applicant.
              Mr.M.A.Aher, APP for the Respondent/State.
              Mr.S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

                                   ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                      DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.             Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and

              the learned APP.



              2.             The Applicant is the son of informant, who is challenging

              the impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the

              learned Sessions Judge, Latur in Criminal Appeal No.44/2015 wherein

              the learned Sessions Judge, Latur was pleased to allow the appeal

              preferred by accused Nos. 2 and 4 i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein.

              The accused persons have been prosecuted for the offence punishable



              khs/Sept.2026/288
                                  -2-

u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 325, 324, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of the

IPC. There were in all 10 accused persons initially and they came to be

prosecuted on the basis of report lodged by informant Madhavrao

Wagalgave stating therein that on 25.05.2012 all the accused persons

assaulted the said informant and his son Sampat in their field by using

the weapons like axe and stick.   The said incident took place when the

informant and his son were working in the field.    The quarrel said to

have taken place on the basis of land dispute and the accused persons

alleged to have inflicted the injuries on the informant and his son.

After registration of crime, the investigation came to be conducted and

charges came to be framed by the Trial Court against all the accused

persons.



3.             The prosecution in order to prove it’s case, examined 6

witnesses. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the

arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted

accused No.2 for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC and accused

No.4 for the offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC.    The Trial Court,

vide it’s order dated 01.04.2015, had acquitted accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9 and 10 from all the offences. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 challenged


khs/Sept.2026/288
                                   -3-

their conviction in Appeal No.44/2015, whereas the first informant

Madhav had also preferred Cri.Appeal No.43/2015 before the learned

Sessions Judge, challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9 and 10.



4.             The   learned   Sessions   Judge   in   Criminal   Appeal

No.44/2015, pertaining to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, allowed the appeal

thereby setting aside their conviction order whereas vide order dated

03.09.2019, in Criminal Appeal No.43/2015, the appeal preferred by

the first informant, came to be dismissed. The informant died during

the pendency of the appeal, and the instant criminal revision

application is filed challenging the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 and 3

through Sampat Nagalgave who is victim and son of informant.



5.             The learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that the

learned Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the order

passed by the learned J.M.F.C., which is a well reasoned order and it

was passed after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution

in proper perspective. He further submits that the prosecution has duly

established before the Trial Court that the evidence of the informant


khs/Sept.2026/288
                                   -4-

and his son is trustworthy and therefore the prosecution has proved the

guilt of accused No.2 for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC and

also the guilt of accused No.4 for the offence punishable u/s 325 of the

IPC. He further submits that the learned Sessions Court, while passing

the impugned order, did not consider the evidence of PW.No.4 the

Medical Officer, which is itself sufficient to support the case of the

prosecution. He, thus, submits that the learned Sessions Court having

reversed the findings of the learned J.M.F.C. has committed grave

illegality and as such the impugned order passed by the learned

Sessions Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.       He, therefore,

prays for allowing the instant criminal revision application.



6.             The learned APP has supported the informant and re-

iterated the same submissions.       Heard the learned Advocate for

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.



7.             After going through the judgments passed by the learned

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is clear that the learned

Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 2 and 4 for the offence punishable

under Sections 324 and 325 respectively.         On the basis of same


khs/Sept.2026/288
                                   -5-

evidence, other accused persons, who are 8 in number, came to be

acquitted by the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has recorded the

findings that the evidence brought before the Court is not sufficient to

hold that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with deadly

weapons and committed riot with common object.         The learned Trial

Court on the basis of said evidence was pleased to consider that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.2 for the offence

punishable u/s 324 of the IPC and also proved the guilt of accused No.4

for the offence punishable u/s 325 of the IPC.



8.             The learned Sessions Court, however, while considering the

appeal of respondent Nos. 2 and 4, considered that the evidence of

P.W.Nos. 1 and 2 is not sufficient to prove offence against the accused

persons.     The learned Sessions Court arrived at a conclusion that the

prosecution witness Nos. 1 and 2 are not reliable witnesses.         The

prosecution witnesses gave their supplementary statement, which goes

to show that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the

crime.      On the basis of overall consideration, the learned Sessions

Court proceeded further to acquit Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.          After

perusing the order passed by the learned Sessions Court, it is clear that


khs/Sept.2026/288
                                    -6-

the quarrel between the parties occurred on account of land dispute,

which is going on since last 30 years. In pursuance to the said dispute,

the quarrel has taken place and in the said fight, accused Nos. 2 and 4

alleged to have assaulted the victims by using weapons like axe and

stick.    P.W.No.3 has stated that the informant is his cousin and he is

acquainted with accused Nos. 1 to 10. At that time, he was in his field

and heard noise and went there. According to him, all the accused

persons were present and there was assault. However, according to

him, his statement was not recorded as per his say and therefore the

evidence of this witness was held to be not truthful by the Sessions

Court.     In the same manner, the evidence of P.W.No.5 also came to be

discarded by the learned Sessions Court.



9.             It is found that on the basis of same evidence, acquittal of

the other accused persons came to be maintained by the learned

Sessions Court in Cri.Appeal No.43/2015. It is further submitted that

the learned Sessions Court found the testimony of the injured witnesses

not trustworthy and therefore the learned Sessions Court proceeded to

acquit accused Nos. 2 and 4. Criminal Appeal No.43/2015, which was

filed by the informant against acquittal of accused Nos.1,3,5,6,7,8,9


khs/Sept.2026/288
                                  -7-

and 10 was not challenged by the informant, but only acquittal of

accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No.44/2015 is challenged by

the present informant.     It is well settled that when two views are

possible, the view favouring the accused is required to be accepted.

After perusing the judgment of the learned Sessions Court, I found no

ground to entertain this Revision Application and accordingly I proceed

to pass the following order :-

       Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.



                                       ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




khs/Sept.2026/288