CrAppeal-698-2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2016 1) Rahul S/o Narhari Sawant Age: 28 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o.: Ukkadgaon (Makka), Tq.Sonpeth, District Parbhani. 2) Narhari S/o Dnyanoba Sawant Age: 53 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. : As above. 3) Kamalbai W/o Narhari Sawant Age : 48 years, Occu.: H.H. & Labour, R/o. As above. 4) Chhaya W/o Rahul Sawant Age: 23 years, Occu.: H.H. & Labour, R/o.: As above. ….Appellants (Orig. Accused) Versus . The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Sonpeth, Tq.Sonpeth, District Parbhani. …..Respondent ….. Mr.Amol Anantrao Jagatkar, Advocate for Appellants. Mrs.Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 21-09-2026 Pronounced on : 22-09-2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Appellants, convicts for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) hereby challenge judgment 2026:BHC-AUG:42920 CrAppeal-698-2016 -2- and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed dated 04-04-2016, in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2013. 2. Before trial Court, case of prosecution against present appellants/original accused was that, on 11-02-2013 at around 07:30 a.m., Santosh was beaten by accused persons for keeping evil eye on the wife of accused No.1 Rahul. There was beating by means of waist belt. At around 04:00 to 04:30 p.m. Santosh hanged himself and therefore, on report of brother of deceased, Crime bearing No.6 of 2013 was registered at Sonpeth Police Station, District Parbhani, for offence under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Trial was conducted and on appreciating oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court was pleased to acquit appellant accused from charges under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC, but convicted them for charge under Section 323 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. Feeling aggrieved by the above, instant appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that, there is false implication. According to him, there was no occurrence as alleged on CrAppeal-698-2016 -3- 11-02-2013. That, there is no independent witness and prosecution has adduced evidence of only interested witnesses. That, there are variance and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Lastly, he submitted that, except accused Nos.1 and 4, all are now around 60 years of age. That, they have no criminal antecedents. That, accused No.1 has already undergone 10 days imprisonment. Hence, in the alternative, he prays that they be let off by extending benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. 4. Learned APP supported Judgment of learned trial Court by submitting that, all prosecution witnesses are consistent on the roles of accused and she justifies the conviction. 5. Heard. Re-appreciated entire evidence. 6. It seems that in the trial Court, prosecution case rests on evidence of eight witnesses i.e. PW1 Amol Digambar Giri, brother of deceased Santosh, his mother PW2 Dhondubai Digambar Giri, wife of deceased PW3 Savita Santosh Giri, uncle of deceased PW4 Bapu Gangagir Giri, Pancha to recovery memo PW5 Sambhaji Ram Bharti, PW6 Bhagwan Dattatraya Kapkar is the Investigating Officer, PW7 Kishan Gopinath Bahirwad is the PSO, PW8 Dr.Harsha Chidri, is the Medical Officer. CrAppeal-698-2016 -4- 7. After examining the record and evidence, it emerges that alleged occurrence was of early morning of 11-02-2013 with deceased Santosh. He allegedly committed suicide at around 04:00 to 04:30 p.m. by hanging himself. Therefore, on complaint, accused were chargesheeted for offence under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. However, learned trial Court has acquitted all accused from charges under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. There is no challenge to the same by the State and therefore, acquittal has remained intact. 8. In support of its case about assault on deceased Santosh, prosecution has adduced evidence of brother, mother, wife and uncle of deceased. Their evidence is at Exhibit Nos.22, 24, 30 and 31 respectively. On going through their examination-in-chief, it is noticed that they all are consistent about occurrence taking place on 11-02-2013 at around 07:00 to 07:30 a.m., accused No.1 Rahul questioning Santosh for staring at his wife and beating him by means of waist belt and brother, wife and mother of Santosh went to his rescue. PW3 Wife and PW1 brother of the deceased Santosh are also deposing about accused assaulting Santosh by catching his hairs. Similarly PW4 uncle of deceased, who has intervened and separated quarrel, has deposed that accused persons beat Santosh. CrAppeal-698-2016 -5- Therefore, as regards to beating is concerned all prosecution witnesses are consistent. Their testimony to that extent has remained undisturbed inspite of searching cross. Therefore, offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC is indeed made out by prosecution. 9. Learned counsel for appellants would point out that, occurrence is of 2013 and almost 13 years have been lapsed since occurrence. That, accused No.1 has already suffered 10 days imprisonment out of sentence awarded to him. That, there being no misuse of liberty or no untoward incident thereafter, he urges for extending benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. 10. On going through the record, it seems that, apparently incident is of 11-02-2013. Conviction is rendered by the learned trial Court in 2016. Appeal is heard in 2026 i.e. after almost 13 years. Sentence awarded by learned trial Court is only of simple imprisonment for one month and accused No.1 has already suffered 10 days imprisonment. There is no reported criminal antecedents or any untoward incident after release on bail. Therefore, considering the above discussion and that judgment of conviction looming large over accused for more than 13 years, and also taking into account the quantum of sentence CrAppeal-698-2016 -6- awarded by the learned trial Court, benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act deserves to be awarded. Accordingly, following order is passed : ORDER I. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. II. The conviction awarded under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to the appellant Nos.(1) Rahul Narhari Sawant (2) Narhari Dnyanoba Sawant (3) Kamalbai Narhari Sawant and (4) Chhaya Rahul Sawant, in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2013 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, vide Judgment and order dated 04-04-2016, is hereby maintained. HOWEVER III. Instead of sentencing appellants to imprisonment, they are directed to be released on probation of good conduct by entering into a bond with one surety each to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during the period of one year. IV. The bond for a period of one year shall be executed by them before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. V. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed off. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] SPT