Partly allowed

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane v. the State of Maharshtra

Bombay HC23 Sept 2013REVN/181/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision application challenges conviction sentencing. The court maintained conviction but set aside the sentence, applying the Probation of Offenders Act to release the appellant on bond pending trial sentence execution.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence set aside; appellant released on bond with surety pending final sentence execution; compensation to victim ordered.

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane Vs the State of Maharshtra — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

4 revn.181.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 181 OF 2011

¶5

BHAGWANTA BHAU DHAMANE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhijit C. Darandale. APP for Respondent : Mr. G.R.Ingole.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

. Heard Mr. A.C.Darandale, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned APP for the Respondent – State of Maharashtra.

¶12

2 The Applicant and two others were prosecuted on the allegations of having committed offences punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 326 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, after holding a trial convicted the Applicant of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer S.I. For 15 days. One of the other accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. The third accused was acquitted of all the offences.

¶13

¶14

4 revn.181.11

¶15

3 Aggrieved by the sentence imposed upon him, the Applicant filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard it, dismissed the same. It is under these circumstances, that the Applicant has approached this Court by filing the present revision application challenging the correctness of the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

¶16

4 Though some brief submissions with regard to merits of the matter were made by the learned counsel for the Applicant, particularly with reference to ‘what offence the Applicant could be said to have committed,’ in the course of arguments, the learned counsel conceded that he would not question the conviction of the Applicant on merits. He did not dispute that there is a concurrent finding of fact arrived at by two Courts, and that considering the limitations on the re-appreciation of the evidence in revisional jurisdiction, he chose not to advance any arguments challenging the correctness of the conviction. He, however, submitted that this was a case, where the benefits of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, should have been given to the Applicant.

¶17

5 I have examined the matter from this point of view. In view of the concession made, I have not gone deeper into the matter to examine whether the order convicting the Applicant of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, suffers from any patent error or illegality. In spite of the concession made, however, I have made a limited examination of the matter, and I do not find that there is any error or illegality in the findings

¶18

¶19

4 revn.181.11

¶20

recorded by the learned Magistrate, which were accepted also by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

¶21

6 It is, however, a fact that injury caused to the victim was held to be simple. The trial Court itself held that it had been caused by the blunt side of the axe. The incident had taken place in the year 1988. The trial concluded in the year 1993. The appeal filed by the Applicant remained pending till 2011. Even the present revision has been pending for a period more than two years. The age of the Applicant, at present, is about 65 years. The incident arose on account of the admitted civil dispute between the parties. There are no antecedents.

¶22

7 In my opinion, this is a fit case where, even at that stage – at the trial stage, the benefit of the provisions of Probation of the Offenders Act should have been granted to the Applicant. The case for extending such benefit now, is much stronger in view of the time gap between the incident and

¶23

today.

¶24

8 Under the circumstances, the revision application is disposed of as follows:

¶25

I. The conviction of the Applicant with respect to the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC is maintained . However, the sentence imposed upon him is set aside.

¶26

¶27

4 revn.181.11

¶28

II. Instead of sentencing the Applicant to any punishment at once, it is directed that he be released on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs.2000/-, with one surety in the like amount, for a period of one year, to appear and receive the sentence, whenever called upon during this period; and in the meantime, to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour, as contemplated under Section 4 of the Offenders Act read with Section 11 thereof.

¶29

III. The Applicant shall, however, pay an amount of Rs. 2000/-, as and by way of compensation to the victim as contemplated under Section 5 of the said Act, by depositing the same in the trial Court within a period of one month from today.

¶30

IV. Necessary bond shall be executed before the trial Court, within a period of one month from today.

¶31

V. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the Applicant.

¶32

9 Criminal Revision Application stands disposed of in the

¶33

aforesaid terms.

¶34

[ ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. ]

¶35

ndm

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwanta Bhau Dhamane v. the State of Maharshtra

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

Sulbha Jagdish Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kamrunbee Shaikh Rafik and Anr. Vs Shaikh Rafik Shaikh Latif

Gazi Abdul Karim Gazi Hasan Miyan Vs Shaikh Rafiya Described Herself as Shaikh Fariya Gazi Abdul Karim

Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Ranchod Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pravin Santosh Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.