Partly allowed

Pandurang Pandit Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC19 Mar 2012REVN/22/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Aurangabad partly allowed criminal revision appeals fixing sentence on two accused convicted under Section 324 IPC. Modifying sentence to time served due to familial ties between accused and victim and mutual consent for peace.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; accused released forthwith from jail; fine already deposited to be paid to victim.

Pandurang Pandit Chavan and Anr. Vs the State of Mah — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Cri. Revn 22/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22/2012

¶6

Pandurang s/o Pandit Chavan, Age : 23 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhamoni, Tal. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶7

Pandit s/o Limbaji Chavan, Age : 58 years, occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhamoni, Tal. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ...Applicants. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Uttam Babarao Muley, Age : 40 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents.

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1322/2012

¶10

Pandurang s/o Pandit Chavan, Age : 23 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhamoni, Tal. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶11

Pandit s/o Limbaji Chavan, Age : 58 years, occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhamoni, Tal. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ...Applicants. Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra,

¶13

2 Cri. Revn 22/2012

¶14

Uttam Babarao Muley, Age : 40 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶15

...Respondents.

¶16

WITH

¶17

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 828/2012

¶18

Pandurang s/o Pandit Chavan, Age : 23 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhamoni, Tal. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. 2. Pandit s/o Limbaji Chavan, Age : 58 years, occu. Agriculture, R/o Dhamoni, Tal. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ...Applicants. Versus

¶19

The State of Maharashtra, 2. Uttam Babarao Muley, Age : 40 years, Occ. Agri. R/o Dhamoni, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani.

¶20

Shri S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicants. Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent / State. Shri S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶21

CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J.

¶22

DATED : 19^th March, 2012

Cri. Revn 22/2012

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

Heard. Perused records.

¶27

Admit.

¶28

Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. waives service of notice for respondent / State.

¶29

By mutual consent the matter is taken up for final hearing only on the issue of quantum of punishment viz-a-viz the relationship between the accused and the victims.

¶30

The accused have been convicted of an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one month each.

¶31

Fine amount has been deposited. Only question that arises in this revision is the quantum of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed on the accused persons, who are related to the victim. The learned advocate Mr. Salunke for the applicants / accused submits that the incident of beating the victim Uttam Babarao Muley with sticks on petty quarrel over cutting of grass on common boundary has given rise to the case in question. However, the passion which was genesis of the incident, has subsided over the period of time and the parties who

¶32

Cri. Revn 22/2012

¶33

¶34

hail from the same village wish to lead peaceful life without harbouring any animosity in their hearts.

¶35

A notice was issued to the victim (P. W. No.1) Uttam Babarao Muley. He is present and fairly makes a statement that the accused no.2 applicant / accused No.2 Pandit Limbaji Chavan is married to his sister and now the relationship between the parties has returned to normalcy, and therefore, the sentence suffered by both the accused is enough.

¶36

The learned advocate Mr. Deshmukh instructed by the victim submits that if the applicants / accused are released on the sentence already suffered, the things would take turn for good in as much as the parties would entertain no animosity. The learned advocate Mr. Salunke submits that the applicants / accused have been in jail since 15/12/2012.

¶37

Considering these facts and circumstances, this revision is partly allowed.

¶38

The sentence is modified and reduced to the period already undergone.

¶39

The applicants / accused shall be released forthwith from the jail unless required in any other case.

¶40

Fine amount already deposited shall be paid to the victim Uttam Babarao Muley.

¶41

Cri. Revn 22/2012

¶42

¶43

Criminal Revision Application No. 22/2012 stands disposed off accordingly.

¶44

Criminal Applications No.1322/2012 and Criminal Application No. 828/2012 do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly.

¶45

The parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Shirastedar attached to this Court.

¶46

( U.D. SALVI, J.)

¶47

ts k/

Pandurang Pandit Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Pandit Chavan and Anr. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakant Santaram Wankalas Vs Rajendra Vishwanath Bhopale and Anr.

Syed Tanveer S/O Syed Ahmadsab Vs Irshad Begum Devorcee W/O Syed Tanveer and Anr.

Syed Bashir Syed Maheboob Vs the State of Maharashtra

Fulchand Raghunat Pardeshi and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Dr Shaikh Ahemed Khalil Ahemed Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Raju Sudam Nagargoje and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.