BHIMRAO S/O. SITARAM NAGARGOJEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:37211


                                               *1*                       27rev72o16


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2016
                           BHIMRAO S/O. SITARAM NAGARGOJE
                                       VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                              ...
                Shri Nagargoje Ankush N., Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                                              ...


                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 17 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.          By this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant

                challenges the judgment and order dated 02.03.2016 passed by

                learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Appeal

                NO.19/2011 by which, the applicant’s appeal came to be

                dismissed and the judgment and order dated 10.02.2011 passed

                by learned JMFC, Ashti, in SCC No.45/2006 convicting the

                applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 353

                of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple

                imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.200/- and simple

                imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, respectively,
                               *2*                     27rev72o16


came to be confirmed.


2.         The prosecution case is that PW-2 Ramkisan Jaibhay

is the informant, who was working as Bus Conductor with the

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). On

21.10.2005, PW-2 was posted at Ashti Depot on the ST Bus

bearing registration No.MH-20/D-6158, which was going to

Sheogaon from Ashti. It’s driver was P.W.3 Ashok Ban. When

the bus reached near Rohatwadi, one passenger rang the bell to

stop the bus. P.W.2 Ramkisan got down and was returning the

remaining amount to the passengers. At that time one passenger

i.e. present applicant abused and slapped him on his face. The

accused held his neck and dragged him. During that scuffle,

uniform of PW-2 Ramkisan got torn. Another bus bearing

registration No.MH-20/8410 of Ashti Depot reached there. It’s

driver P.W.4 Raosaheb Yede and Conductor D.P. Jaibhay

intervened. PW-2 Ramkisan came to know that said unruly

passenger is drunk and his name is Bhimrao Nagargoje i.e.

applicant. PW-2 Ramkisan and others took him to police station

Patoda. PW-2 Ramkisan lodged report Ex.12 against him. He

was medically examined by P.W.6 Dr. Taware who issued
                                 *3*                        27rev72o16


certificate Ex.22.


3.           After completing investigation, the charge-sheet

came to be filed. The learned Trial Court explained particulars of

charges and the applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. Evidence was led and after appreciation of evidence, the

learned Trial Court held the applicant/ accused guilty of offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code

and awarded sentence as above. The applicant is acquitted of the

offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.


4.           Learned advocate for the applicant submits that both

Courts below have committed an error and rendered conviction

in total contravention of law. The grounds raised by the applicant

in appeal have not been properly considered by the appellate

Court and without considering the said grounds, the appellant

Court has dismissed the appeal. Learned advocate submits that

both impugned judgments and orders are incorrect and perverse

and prayed for acquittal of the accused.


5.           In the alternative, learned advocate for the applicant

submits that the applicant is 60 years of age and there are no

previous criminal antecedents against the applicant. Therefore, if
                                 *4*                        27rev72o16


this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this revision,

then the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act be given to

the applicant.


6.           Per contra, learned APP appearing for the

respondent/ State strongly opposed the revision. He submits that

evidence recorded by the Trial Court has been appreciated in

proper perspective by the appellate Court. The impugned

judgments are correct and proper and require no interference by

this Court. According to learned APP, there being concurrent

findings, therefore, the revision application is liable to be

dismissed.


7.           Having gone through evidence on record and the

impugned judgments, it is evident that the prosecution has

examined as many as six witnesses, namely, PW-1 Shamrao who

is the panch witness, PW-2 informant, PW-3 Ashok Ban (driver

of the bus), PW-4 Raosaheb Yede (driver of another bus), PW-5

Prabhakar is the Investigating Officer and PW-6 is the Medical

Officer. On perusal of evidence of these witnesses, it is seen that

the prosecution has proved the case against the applicant beyond

reasonable doubts. Learned Trial Court, relying on testimonies of
                                 *5*                        27rev72o16


these witnesses, has convicted the accused.


8.          Learned Trial Court, while convicting the applicant/

accused, has observed that the informant PW-2, PW-3 Ashok Ban

and PW-4 Raosaheb Yede have categorically stated about the

manner in which the incident took place. They have stated that

the accused assaulted the informant and at that time, the

informant was on duty. The prosecution has established that the

accused has caused hurt to the informant and used criminal force

against the informant thereby, deterring him from discharging his

duty. Learned Sessions Judge maintained the judgment passed

by learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused,

by reiterating the same evidence and observing that the accused

has committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353

of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has used force to deter

public servant from discharging his duty and therefore, has

rightly been convicted by both the Courts below.


9.          Having regard to the limited scope of revisional

jurisdiction, 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
                                 *6*                       27rev72o16


of justice. On independent consideration of the evidence of PW-

2, PW-3 and PW-4, I find 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.


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

applicant is presently aged about 60 years and, as stated, has no

previous criminal antecedents. The offence, though proved, arose

out of a solitary incident and the applicant has already faced the

ordeal of criminal proceedings for a considerable period. Having

regard to the nature of the offences, the age and antecedents of

the applicant and the long passage of time, I am of the view that

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

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


      (a)   Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.


      (b)   The conviction of the applicant for the offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of the IPC is maintained.

However, the substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is
                                         *7*                       27rev72o16


      modified and, instead of sentencing him at once to any

      punishment, he is directed to be released on probation of good

      conduct under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.


               (c)   The applicant shall enter into a bond with one surety

      for one year to receive the sentence when called upon during the

      above period and in the meantime, maintain peace and good

      behaviour.


               (d)   Record and proceedings be returned to the Trial

      Court.




kps                              ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )