High Court allowed criminal revision to reduce the substantive sentence from three months to a fine, maintaining the conviction for rioting causing hurt and keeping the original fine.
Substantive sentence of 3 months S.I. set aside; conviction confirmed; fine of Rs. 250/- under each head maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sherla V.
revn.32.2000+201.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.32 OF 2000
Arun Raghunath Mhatre & ors. … Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Ms.Megha Bajoria I/b K.S. Patil for the Applicants
Ms.Veera Shinde, APP, for the Respondent – State
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: JANUARY 3, 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Page 1 of 5
revn.32.2000+201.doc
dated 28.1.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane. Hence, this revision application.
The offence of rioting and unlawful assembly punishable under section 147, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was registered against the applicants/accused at the instance of one Sundar Yadav, who was working as an Assistant Production manager in the machine shop department of Voltas Switch Gear Company Ltd. at Thane. On 29.10.1992, the original accused No.12 had dispute over punching of the card and not attending the duty. So, the Personnel Manager Shri Patil issued him a notice which was to be served on him. However, accused No.12 refused to accept the notice. On 30.10.1992, he attacked the complainant with stool and also assaulted him with fists and blows and went away. Thereafter, on the same day, when Security Officer Shri Quadraz i.e., PW3 and Mr.Prasad Akherkar (PW7) who was an Engineer were assaulted by all the accused with fists and blows in the locker room. Thereafter, all the accused attacked Patil, Dighe, Quadraz when they were proceeding towards the machine shop on the same day.
Page 2 of 5
revn.32.2000+201.doc
Thus, there were 3 incidents of assault by the accused. After framing of charge, at exhibit 49, under section 147 , 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses. The accused took defence of vindictive approach of the management on account of rivalry between 2 unions. The trial Judge has assessed the evidence of each and every witness and also discussed and relied on the injury certificates of Shrirang M. Dighe (PW9), A.H. Patil (PW8), Prasad Akherkar (PW7). Thus, the medical evidence was found trustworthy as it corroborated the ocular evidence and the trial Court held that the accused have committed offence as alleged. It is also to be noted that the incident took place on 30.10.1992 and within 7 hours, the FIR was registered and the injured persons were sent for medical examination. Nothing can be faulted out with the impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate as also the judgement of the learned Sessions judge confirming the sentence. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants that for the first incident of assault which took place in the cabin, one Engineer, namely, Javed Shaikh was present and he claimed that he was also injured at the hands of the complainant, is not
Page 3 of 5
revn.32.2000+201.doc
examined and no independent witness is examined, are not convincing because all the other injured witnesses have entered the box and have faced cross-examination. However, their evidence alongwith the medical evidence is found reliable on the point of occurrence of the incident of assault. Similarly, the defence of union rivalry also cannot be appreciated for false implication of the applicants/accused when concrete evidence on the point of assault is tendered to call the witnesses. However, there is substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the incident has occurred in October, 1992 and the applicants/accused are not hard core criminals but they were labourers in the factory, and this fact ought to have been considered by the Sessions Court.
Page 4 of 5
revn.32.2000+201.doc
point of sentence, the sentence can be reduced as follows:
i) The judgment and conviction of the accused persons under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act is confirmed, however, the substantive sentence awarded of 3 months is set aside. However, the payment of fine of Rs.250/- under each head is maintained.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the substantive sentence of three months S.I. under sections 147 of IPC and 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act should be reduced considering the age of applicants and time lapse.
Whether the fine of Rs. 250/- under each head should be maintained despite reducing the substantive sentence.
Whether the conviction for rioting and unlawful assembly causing hurt requires confirmation or remission.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arun Raghunath Mhatre & ors.
The State of Maharashtra
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
