Bombay High Court

Kundlik Sambhaji patilversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The revision is dismissed because the trial court correctly held that eye‑witness statements provide sufficient material to frame charges and the non‑seizure of stolen articles does not invalidate that evidence.

Summary

The applicant sought discharge in a criminal case where the accused was charged under Sections 354 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application, holding that eye‑witness statements provided sufficient material to frame charges despite the fact that stolen articles and a weapon had not been seized. The applicant filed a revision challenging that order, but no counsel appeared on the scheduled dates. The learned appellate judge affirmed the lower court's decision, noting that the non‑seizure of stolen items is not a ground to discard eye‑witness evidence. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the trial court is expected to frame charges on 17 September 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the discharge application should be allowed on the ground of non‑seizure of stolen articles and weapon.
Whether eye‑witness statements alone constitute sufficient material to frame charges under Sections 354 and 397 IPC.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applicant's discharge application.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 354, 397

Subjects

Criminal Revision
Discharge Application
Eye‑witness Evidence
Non‑seizure of Stolen Articles
IPC Section 354
IPC Section 397
Charges Framing

Judgment

                                                                  11-REVN-363-2025.doc


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CR. REVISION APPLN. NO. 363 OF 2025

             Kundlik Sambhaji Patil                                  …Applicant
                  Vs
             The State Of Maharashtra                              …Respondent

             None for the Applicant
             Mr. Shrikant H. Yadav, APP for the State
             Mr. Babasaheb R. Sarwade, API, Ajara Police Station

                                    CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
                                    DATE    : 4 SEPTEMBER 2026


             P. C. :
             1.      The present Criminal Revision Application challenges the order

             dated 30 May 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

             Gadhinglaj, whereby the application preferred by the present

             Applicant seeking discharge was rejected. The crime was registered

             against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 354 and
IRESH
MASHAL

             397 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL
Date:
2026.09.09
10:13:08
             2.      The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the
+0530



             witnesses in clear words gave statements about the incident that

             happened with them, and on that basis, there is sufficient material to

             frame charges against the accused. Only on the ground that non-


                                               1/2
             Iresh
                                                      11-REVN-363-2025.doc


seizure of stolen articles and weapon is not a ground to discard the

evidence of eye-witnesses, the discharge application was rejected.


3.      None appeared for the Applicant on 21 November 2025,

neither on 7 August 2026 anybody appeared on behalf of the

revisional Applicant.


4.      The learned APP submits that on 17 September 2026, the

charge would be framed by the Trial Court.


5.      In view of above, the Revision Application stands dismissed for

non-prosecution.



                                                (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




                                  2/2
Iresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…