CriAppeal-704-2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.704 OF 2024 1. Chetan Komalsing Parmar Age: 49 years, Occu.: Labour, 2. Yash Chetansing Parmar Age: 22 years, Occu.: Education, Both R/o. Shindkheda Tal. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule .. Appellants Versus . The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station, In-charge Officer, Shindkheda Police Station, Tq. Shindkheda, District Dhule. .. Respondent … Mr. Chetan T. Jadhav, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for respondent/State. ... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 24.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 25.08.2026 JUDGMENT :- 1. Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.97 of 2021 convicting the appellants for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code [IPC]. 2026:BHC-AUG:38432 CriAppeal-704-2024 -2- 2. In all, four accused were charge-sheeted, including the present two appellants, on the premise that on 18.04.2021, the informant, who was the driver of the fire brigade vehicle, was beaten by accused, namely, Chetan and Yash, for refusing to take the vehicle to a site where there was fire to the wheat crop. After the scuffle and beating, the accused pushed the informant and also abused him in filthy language. Therefore, the informant lodged a report, resulting in registration of Crime No.56 of 2021 and leading to further investigation and filing of the charge-sheet against the appellants and two other accused. 3. The case was registered as Sessions Case No.97 of 2021 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, who appreciated the evidence of in all seven witnesses and recorded the guilt of appellants for offence under Section 323 of IPC. 4. Now, the challenge to the above judgment and order is primarily on the ground that there is no convincing and legally acceptable evidence on the point of occurrence. Secondly, there is no independent witness and, there being false implication, it is submitted that there are material omissions in the evidence of the informant and that the allegations of assault do not tally with the injury certificate. He, therefore, urged to set aside the impugned judgment and order CriAppeal-704-2024 -3- 5. Learned APP would support the judgment and order of conviction on the ground that there is convincing evidence of both the informant as well as an independent eyewitness and further support from the medical evidence. 6. Re-appreciated the evidence. P.W.1 Informant, who is examined at Exhibit-18 stated that he works as a driver on the fire brigade vehicle of Shindkhea Nagar Panchayat. According to him, on 18.04.2021 he received phone call from accused informing that there is fire to the standing crop in the field and to come there. He claims to have reached there and took the vehicle to the point and spot wherein it was possible to take the vehicle, however, accused were insisting the vehicle to be taken ahead. That time informant’s associate Ajay Dodwe reached there and he claims that for not listening to them, accused persons caught informant by his collar, whereas Yash gave fist blows on head, back and ribs while other accused caught hold of informant. For above occurrence, he lodged report, which he identified at Exhibit-24. While under cross-examination, there are questions about his appointment in the Nagar Parishad, about the complaint being silent regarding his possession of driving licence for heavy vehicle, and about there being no entries in the logbook regarding the visit to the CriAppeal-704-2024 -4- spot. So much is the only material cross-examination. 7. PW5, seems to be an eyewitness, who is examined at Exhibit-43. In paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of his examination-in-chief, he narrated what he saw about accused assaulting the informant. Nothing damaging has been brought in his cross-examination. 8. PW3 is the medical officer, who examined informant and noticed bruise injury below the neck and he identified the certificate Exhibit-40. While under cross-examination, he answered that the said injury is possible on account of a dash suffered by the door of the S.T. Bus. He stated that there was no injury to the neck of the patient. 9. PW2 is the spot panch. 10. PW4 is the officer of Nagarpanchayat, but he is not an eye witness. However, he deposed about noticing injury mark on the person of informant and accompanying him to the police station. 11. Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the testimony of informant, which finds support from the independent eyewitness regarding the injury, i.e. medical evidence, which has remained unshaken. Therefore, this CriAppeal-704-2024 -5- Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the learned Trial Court recording conviction. ORDER I. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. II. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.97 of 2021, is hereby maintained. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm