SANJAY NAMDEO BUKANE and ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                        8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   REVISION APPLICATION NO. 580 OF 2002
NAVNATH               1. Sanjay Namdeo Bukane
SITARAM
WAGHMARE              2.Prabhakar Ganpat Koli
                                                                             ...Applicants
Digitally signed by
NAVNATH SITARAM                  Versus
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.09.18      The State Of Maharashtra                               ...Respondent
19:16:08 +0530
                                                       ****
                      Mr. Chetan Gogawale i/b. Law Global Advocates for the Applicants.
                      Ms. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.
                                                       ****
                                                CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                 DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      P.C. :


                      1.          Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and Learned APP for
                      the Respondent/State.

                      2.          By this revision application, Original Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are
                      challenging the judgment and order dated 19.12.2002 passed by II nd
                      Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1997,
                      dismissing the said appeal and confirming the conviction as well as
                      sentence awarded under Judgment dated 18.12.1996 by IV th Assistant
                      Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 620 of 1987.

                      3.          The case of the prosecution in short is that in January 1987
                      Complainant Ramabai - mother of the injured had gone to the native
                      place and during her absence, her son Anil Phumali went missing. On
                      enquiry, she came to know that Anil had gone with Sanjivani and
                      missing complaint was filed. 15 days prior to the date of incident,
                      Sanjivani and Anil      returned and told that they had mutually gone
                      together. The mother came to know that the accused were treating



                      Navnath Waghmare                                                           1
                                                 8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



Sanjivani as their sister and were openly telling that they would teach a
lesson to Anil.

4.          On 19.05.1987, at about 4:30 p.m. when Complainant-
Ramabai and Anil were repairing the house, Accused Nos. 1 and 2
came along with Jayant Rohekar and assaulted Anil and threatened him
that they would teach him a lesson for defaming them by taking away
their sister. A formal complaint was filed about the said incident and
police made arrest.

5.          On 01.06.1987 i.e. on the date of the incident, at about 10:45
a.m. when deceased Anil was standing on the road in front of a tailor
shop, the Accused came there with weapons. Accused- Jayant gave blow
by sword on the head of Anil, Revision Applicants - Sanjay Bukane and
Prabhakar Koli assaulted Anil by iron rod and Koyata (Sickle)
respectively and Vinayak Bandekar gave kick and fist blows. The
accused were questioning Anil as to whether he would again elope with
Sanjivani and would dare to file a police complaint. The injured raised
cries for help and Accused ran away. The incident left Anil with bleeding
injuries on his head, neck, right hand and muffled injuries on his back.
He was shifted to the Hospital by his brother-Milind and their parents.

6.          Mother gave oral statements to the police and the offence was
registered under Sections 307, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short). During the course of the investigation,
blood stained clothes of the injured were seized. Statements were
recorded. Accused were absconding, who were traced and arrested.

7.          Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
defence of the accused is of denial. It was contended on behalf of the
defence that the deceased Accused Jayant and Anil were in cross-terms



Navnath Waghmare                                                          2
                                                  8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



with each other and Revision Applicants being friends of deceased
Jayant, have been falsely implicated.

8.          The prosecution examined injured Anil as PW-1 and his
brother-Milind as PW-2, their mother-Ramabai as PW-3, One Ramraj
Malik was examined as PW-4 for proving discovery.                 Investigating
Officers, Mr. R.V. Padwal and Mr. N.P. Patil were also examined.

9.          Accused Jayant died during pendency of the Trial.

10.         Learned Assistant Sessions Judge who heard and tried the case
sentenced the remaining accused, including Revision Applicants for the
offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and
sentenced them suffer to rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’ for short) for 3
years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine payment, to suffer
simple imprisonment (‘SI’ for short) for 3 months.

11.         The Accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1997 challenging
the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. It appears that Accused
Vinayak also died during pendency of the proceedings. The Appeal
Court by impugned order has dismissed the appeal. In these
circumstance, the Revision Applicants are before this Court. Revision
was admitted on 06.01.2003 and Revision-Applicants were enlarged on
bail on same terms as earlier bail.

12.         Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted as under.

12.1. That alleged use of the iron rod is not supported by the injuries
found. That injuries are incised wounds and could not have been
inflicted with a weapon like iron rod.

12.2. That Revision Applicants were friends of the main accused and
therefore they are falsely implicated. That since the Applicants were


Navnath Waghmare                                                           3
                                                      8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



part of the earlier incident on 19.05.1987, the injured and his mother
have implicated the Applicants out of the grudge to take revenge.

12.3. That the main accused treated said Sanjivani as sister and it was
the vendetta of the main accused and the Applicants were not part of
the act and they were not involved. That they had no motive to assault
the injured.

12.4. That the incident had taken place on open street, but no
independent witnesses are examined.

12.5. That this is an old incident of 1987 and considering long passage
of time, as on today, Applicants are at advances age of about 60 years
and therefore, case is required to be considered leniently.

13.         On the other hand, learned APP has supported the impugned
order and the conviction and sentence thereunder. She submitted that
already only 3 years’       rigorous imprisonment is awarded in a grave
offence like Section 307 of IPC. She submitted that the injuries
considered by both the Courts below are of serious nature and are
inflicted upon vital body parts and as such the offence is clearly made
out. She submitted that in revisional jurisdiction, this Court may not re-
appreciate the evidence to take contrary view.

14.         I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
impugned Judgment and the Judgment of the Trial Court.

15.         Following is the list of injuries as per injury certificate :

             (1)    Incised wound on forehead, right side, oblique, 4 cm. x 1
                   cm. X bone deep, both angles acute with clear-cut edges,
                   bleeding resent, tender.

             (2) Tranmatic Amputation to right hand, 4th and 5th fingers at
                 the level of proximal phalanx, bleeding present, tender, clear-



Navnath Waghmare                                                               4
                                                      8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



                   cut edges.

             (3)    Incised wound on right hand, middle finger dorsally, linear,
                   2.5 cm x 0.5 cms. X skin deep, both angles acute.

             (4) Linear incised wound on right lower back, oblique, 5 cm. x
                 0.5 cm. X skin deep, both angles acute with clear cut edges.

             (5) Incised wound on scalp, prietal region, oblique, 8 cms. x 0.5
                 cms X middle deep, both angles acute, with clear cut edges,
                 bleeding present.

             (6) Incised wound on scalp, occipital region, oblique, 7 cms. 0.5
                 cms, x middle deep, both angles acute, with clear cut edges,
                 bleeding present.



16.         Therefore, it is clear that victim Anil has suffered wounds on
scalp and forehead, there has been amputation of two finger, there is
injury on right lower back. It is clear that vital body-parts have been
injured.

17.         Injured Mr. Anil had deposed that accused persons assaulted
him on 19.05.1987 itself which led to filing of complaint by him in the
concerned police station. He has testified that at the time of the
incident, Accused Jayant was holding sword, Revision Applicant Sanjay
was holding iron rod and Revision Applicant Prabhakar was holding
Koyata/sickle in his hand. He has stated that Mr. Sanjay hit him with
iron rod on his head causing bleeding injury and Prabhakar hit him on
his neck using Koyata/sickle. The said deposition of injured has been
corroborated by PW-3 Ramabai - mother of the injured, who was
present at the spot of incident. It is recorded that mother has clearly
denied suggestion about her absence from the incident.

18.         It has come on record that that the defence has admitted
documents of Spot Panchnama, Panchnama of seizure clothes of the


Navnath Waghmare                                                               5
                                                  8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



injured, Panchnama of arrest of the accused and seizure clothes which
were on the person of the accused having blood stains and injury
certificate.

19.         Victim-injured himself has himself stated that revision
Applicant Nos. 1 & 2 carrying iron rod and sickle had assaulted. It is
duly corroborated by his mother. Hence, it cannot be accepted as an
argument that there was no involvement of Revision Applicants at all.

20.         Considering the nature of attack carried out with weapons like
iron rod and sickle, it cannot be expected that by-standers or persons
who might have otherwise seen the incident would have come forward
to give evidence in support of the prosecution. Hence, the argument
that no independent witnesses are examined also cannot be accepted.
The injured victim and his mother has sufficiently corroborated the
incident and further considering the nature of injuries inflicted
(emerging from injury certificate) alleged offence is clearly made out.

21.            Learned counsel for the Applicants has argued about the
nature of the injury and how they are not possible. He submitted that
iron rod can inflict blunt injuries and even the sickle will not inflict
incised woulds considering its shape and sharpness. All these arguments
are in the realm of re-appreciation of evidence to come to a contrary
conclusion, which exercise is not permitted under the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court, as clarified in State Vs. Manimaran (2019) 13
SCC 670, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

                "16. As held in State of Kerala V. Puttumana Illath
                Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily it
                would not be appropriate for the High Court to
                reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
                conclusion on the same when the evidence has already


Navnath Waghmare                                                           6
                                                    8-REVN-580-2002 C2.doc



               been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the
               Sessions Court in appeal. When the courts below
               recorded the concurrent findings of fact, in our view, the
               High Court was not right in interfering with the
               concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts
               below and the impugned order cannot be sustained."


                                               (emphasis supplied)

22.         In that view of the matter, it is not possible to re-appreciate
the nature of injuries to come to contrary conclusion.

23.         The argument about Applicants’ age today and the appeal for
leniency also can not be acceded to, considering the gravity of the
offence and manner in which the incident has happened in broad day-
light on the street.

24.         Courts below have concurrently convicted the Revision
Applicants and sentenced them on appreciation of evidence. No
perversity is found in the view taken.

25.         In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, there is no reason to interfere.

26.         Revision Application is accordingly dismissed.                   Rule is
discharged. Applicants’ bail bond is discharged.

27.         At this stage, learned counsel for the Applicants seeks stay to
this order for a period of 8 weeks. Considering that the Revision-
Applicants were on bail during pendency of the revision, Applicants are
granted 6 weeks time to surrender.

                                           (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                             7