Criminal Revision Application No. 59 of 2014. Case: Gopal Punju Samudre Vs The State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Revision Application No. 59 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Girish Nagori, Advocate and For Respondents: S.G. Chinchokkar, A.P.P. |
| Judges | A.I.S. Cheema, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 31; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 160, 353, 427, 71 |
| Citation | 2014 ALLMR 3953 (Cri) |
| Judgement Date | March 13, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A.I.S. Cheema, J., (Aurangabad Bench)
-
Heard learned counsel for Petitioners. Notice to Respondent. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice for Respondent State. Heard finally at the admission stage.
-
Learned counsel for Petitioners submits that the case of prosecution is that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were quarrelling with each other under influence of drink on 31st December, 2005 at about 10.45 p.m. at Smarak Chowk, Taloda, when it is alleged that the complainant Police Constable Dharma More intervened. At that time, it is claimed that the Petitioner No. 1 Accused No. 1 used criminal force to the constable Dharma Harchand More by holding constable with his shirt while he was on duty and it tore and button of the shirt was broken. Learned counsel submits that on these facts the matter went to the trial Court and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 Mahendra Punju Samudre and Gopal Punju Samudre, for the offence punishable under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred) and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 7 days. The Petitioner No. 1 Gopal Punju Samudre has been also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Similar punishment has been imposed for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the I.P.C. also on Accused No. 1 Gopal Punju Samudre. The sentences have been directed to run consecutively. Learned counsel submitted that in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada has dismissed the Appeal.
-
According to the learned counsel for Petitioners, the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that Accused No. 1 was not found to be under the influence of alcohol and only Accused No. 2 was found to be under influence of alcohol. According to learned counsel, the complainant Constable Dharma Harchand More was stated to be on combing night round duty but Police Inspector concerned in evidence, stated that the Constable was on fixed point duty. Argument on this count was wrongly discarded by the Sessions Court. It has been further argued that the evidence of complainant Dharma...
To continue reading
Request your trial