Bombay High Court

BHAUSO APPASO DUBALversusVIJAYSINH NETAJIRAO DUBAL

Disposal: Rejected

Holding

The revision is dismissed and the acquittal of the accused is upheld.

Summary

The applicant filed a criminal revision under Sections 442 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the dismissal of his appeal and the confirmation of his acquittal in a 2008 criminal case. The trial court and the Additional Sessions Judge had acquitted the applicant, noting that the prosecution’s evidence was weak, relying mainly on witnesses who were close relatives of the informant and lacking independent corroboration. The prosecution’s failure to produce medical examination reports and the police officer’s admission of not preparing a proper Panchanama further undermined the case. The High Court examined the lower courts’ findings and concluded that the revision lacked merit. Consequently, the revision application was rejected, leaving the acquittal intact.

Issues considered

Whether the revision under Sections 442 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is maintainable in the present circumstances
Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to overturn the acquittal of the accused

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 442, 528

Subjects

criminal revision
acquittal
insufficient evidence
witness credibility
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

Judgment

                                                                   9-REVN-52-25.doc


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2025

        Bhauso Appaso Dubal                                 … Applicant
              V/s.
        Vijaysinh Netajirao Dubal                         … Respondents
                                    ___________
        Adv. Mohan Chavan a/w Adv. Sumit Dhanawade, i/b Adv. R.V.
        Bansode, for the applicant.
        Mr. Avinash A. Naik, APP for the respondent – state.
        Adv. Balwant Salunkhe, for the respondent nos. 5, 6,
        7,11,12,13,14,15,16,21,22,23,24 & 25.
                                    ___________

                                        CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
                                        DATE        : 14 AUGUST 2026

        P. C. :

        1.        The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed under

        Section 442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

        Sanhita, 2023, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 30th

        November 2024 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Sangli, in

        Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2024, dismissing the appeal and confirming

        the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 to 25 recorded by the learned J.M.F.C.,

        Tasgaon, in Regular Criminal Case No. 73 of 2008.


        2.        The Trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have



Rushi
                                           1 of 3
                                                            9-REVN-52-25.doc


carefully considered the facts of the present case. Both the Courts below

have acquitted the present Applicant of the charges levelled against him

in respect of his alleged involvement. The learned Sessions Court has also

taken into consideration the fact that the witnesses examined by the

complainant are close relatives of the informant. There is no other

independent witness. Admittedly, civil litigation is pending between the

parties. It can be seen from the evidence of the witnesses that the

prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the guilt

of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that when the informant,

along with his son and nephews, was at home, about 20 to 25 persons

pelted stones at them. It is further stated that, at around 2.00 a.m., when

the informant had reached his home, about 20 to 25 persons kicked at his

door and threatened him. It has been deposed that about 100 tiles of the

informant's house were broken and were lying on the floor. He has

further deposed that, in the said incident, he sustained bleeding injuries

and that his sons and nephews also sustained bleeding injuries. As the

nearest, Hawaldar Kumbhar was on patrolling duty. He was informed

about the incident at 3.00 p.m. at the local police station, whereupon he

proceeded to the spot of the incident. It is further stated that Dr. Dipak

Bharati had examined the complainant. However, it is a matter of fact

that Dr. Dipak Bharati was not examined by the prosecution. So also, Dr.

Popat Mohite, from whom Raju and Digvijay had taken medical


                                  2 of 3
                                                                    9-REVN-52-25.doc


        treatment, was not examined. Therefore, it is submitted that the

        prosecution has failed to prove the injuries allegedly sustained by the

        witnesses. In the cross-examination, P.W. 10, Kumbhar, has admitted that

        he did not prepare a Panchanama of the damaged motorcycle. In the

        Panchanama, there is no mention of 100 tiles of the informant's house,

        nor is there any reference to the damage caused to the motorcycle.

        Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the appeal filed by the

        complainant.


        3.    After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I have gone

        through the two judgments passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate

        Court. There is no merit in the present Criminal Revision Application.


        4.    Hence, the Criminal Revision Application stands rejected.


                                                        [RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]




Rushi
                                          3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…