Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2006. Case: Dnyaneshwar s/o Ramnath Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate, Pravin G. Patil i/b V. R. Dhorde, Advs. and For Respondents: D. V. Tele, A.P.P. |
| Judges | S. P. Davare, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 307 |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 2152 |
| Judgement Date | March 14, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant herein, by way of judgment and order, dated 29.12.2005, rendered by the learned 1st ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2005.
-
It appears that the appellant herein was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 independently and also r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the co-accused and faced the trial in the aforesaid Sessions Case and the said co-accused came to be acquitted therefor, but the appellant herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant (original accused No. 1) has preferred the present appeal assailing the said conviction and sentence and prayed for quashment thereof.
-
The factual matrix of the present case is as follows:
The complainant, namely Ranjit Shankarrao Patil i.e. PW8 was running a club at Gevrai at the relevant time. Appellant Dnyaneshwar was also conducting a club at the said place. It is alleged that the appellant was under the impression that the complainant's club was doing better business than his club. Hence, on 7.3.2004, the appellant along with co-accused Raju Mote and the absconding accused Sheru Mote alias Sharad Mote approached the complainant Ranjit Patil at about 6.00 p.m. when he was in front of Saheli Emporium at Gevrai along with his friends, namely Khalil and Ranjeet Honde. It is also alleged that appellant Dnyaneshwar was armed with a Rampuri knife and Sheru Mote was armed with a sword; whereas Raju Mote was having an iron bar in his hand. It is further alleged that the appellant hurled abuses towards the complainant Ranjit Patil and gave a blow of knife on his ribcage on the left hand side and also gave a blow below left arm pit. It is also alleged that the first blow caused grievous injury and after the aforesaid assault, the complainant Ranjit fell down. Thereafter the said assailants fled away towards the direction of the office of Panchayat Samiti. The friends of the complainant, namely Ranjeet Honde and Khalil picked up complainant Ranjit Patil and took him to the Government Hospital, Gevrai, where he was given first aid and then he was sent to the Civil Hospital, Beed, where he was admitted for some time during which time his complaint was recorded. Thereafter he was shifted to Dhoot Hospital at Aurangabad, for further medical treatment.
-
According to the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Ranjit Patil recorded at the Civil Hospital, Beed, a crime was registered against the appellant and other co-accused under Sections 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act under C.R. No. 26 of 2004. Pursuant to the registration of the said crime, investigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial