CriAppeal-528-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2016 1. Khakiba w/o Bhujang Suryawanshi Age: 44 years, Occu.: Agri., 2. Madhav s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, Age: 34 years, Occu.: Agri., 3. Sanjay s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, Age: 32 years, Occu.: Agri., 4. Baliram s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, Age: 49 years, Occu.: Agri., All R/o. Narsi, Tq. Naigaon, District Nanded. .. Appellants Versus . The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent …. Mr. Upendra B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for the respondent/State. …. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 02.09.2026 Pronounced on : 03.09.2026 JUDGMENT :- 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No.06 of 2012 convicting appellants for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [IPC]. 2026:BHC-AUG:40126 CriAppeal-528-2016 -2- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Appellants were charge-sheeted on the premise that on 26.03.2011, in the backdrop of previous quarrel, accused persons assaulted informant by means of sticks and caused him injuries on back, knee and left eye. Informant reported the occurrence to police, who referred him for medical examination. On his report, crime was registered, which was investigated by PW12, who, on completing investigation, charge-sheeted the accused persons. . At trial, prosecution adduced evidence of as many as 13 witnesses and relied on various panchanamas as well as injury certificate. . After recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, parties were heard and learned trial Court accepted the case of prosecution, but for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted them from the charges under Sections 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, this appeal. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellants :- 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants assailed the prosecution case before this court and pointed out that almost all prosecution CriAppeal-528-2016 -3- witnesses had resiled from their statements and had not supported prosecution case. According to him, there is sole testimony of informant and there is no corroboration. Moreover, the allegations are general, omnibus and vague in nature. It is not clarified as to which of the accused played what role in the alleged incident. That, recovery is not proved, however, such crucial aspects are not appreciated by learned trial Court and case of prosecution is directly accepted. . In the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that, if this Court is not inclined to allow the appeal, the appellants may be directed to pay a fine instead of being sentenced to suffer imprisonment. On behalf of respondent/State :- 4. Learned APP would justify the judgment and order of conviction, as according to him evidence of informant is credible, trustworthy and has remained intact. That, there is independent eye witness account in the form of PW7 and PW8. Moreover, there is also support from medical evidence and hence, according to him, the learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. CriAppeal-528-2016 -4- ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 5. Re-appreciated the entire evidence. As submitted, panch to spot PW1 and PW3, panch to recovery PW2, PW4, PW5 and PW6 have not supported story of prosecution. 6. PW11 is the complainant and, in his evidence at Exhibit-48, he testified that, prior to the incident, there was quarrel between him, Khakiba and his brother over occupying a seat in the rickshaw. On account of such quarrel, Khakiba and others assaulted him with fists, kicks and sticks, and therefore, he approached the police. . Though this witness was cross-examined, the aforesaid testimony has not been shaken. 7. PW7 and PW8 are independent witnesses and they, in their evidence at Exhibit-38 and Exhibit-39, deposed that accused/appellants beat complainant by means of sticks as well as legs and accused ran away. Even in cross-examination, their evidence has remained virtually unshaken. . There is also the evidence of PW13, the Medical Expert, who has deposed about five injuries and their nature, which he noticed while examining the complainant on 26.03.2011. He also identified CriAppeal-528-2016 -5- the injury certificate issued by him. 8. Thus, here, there is credible evidence of complainant finding support from independent witnesses like PW7 and PW8 and there is support from medical corner. Considering the nature of assault, offence of voluntarily causing simple injuries is made out and therefore, ingredients of Section 323 of IPC are attracted. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the alleged incident took place in the year 2011, i.e. almost one and a half decades back. The conviction was rendered in the year 2016, i.e. almost ten years ago, and the very conviction has been looming over their heads for almost a decade, which, according to him, itself was a sort of punishment. He pointed out that, even before the learned Trial Court, a prayer was made to impose a fine instead of sentencing the accused persons to imprisonment. 10. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in March 2011 and the trial concluded in the year 2016. There are charges of causing simple injuries. Therefore, considering the nature of offence and the fact that Section 323 of the IPC also provides for punishment by way of fine and as conviction is rendered almost a decade back, in the interest of justice, imposing a fine instead of sentence of imprisonment would CriAppeal-528-2016 -6- subserve the purpose of justice. Hence, the following order is passed :- ORDER I) The conviction imposed on the appellants i.e. 1) Khakiba w/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, 2) Madhav s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, 3) Sanjay s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi and 4) Baliram s/o Bhujang Suryawanshi, for offence punishable under section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli dated 22.07.2016 in Sessions Case No. 06 of 2012 is hereby maintained and kept intact. II. However, the sentence is reduced and instead of sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment for one year, they are hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each. In default of payment of the fine amount, the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months." III. Bail bonds of appellants stand cancelled. IV. It is clarified that rest of the operative order passed by the learned trial court is maintained. V. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm