LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-93

VINAYAK Vs. BALU ALIAS DHANRAJ

Decided On February 17, 2011
VINAYAK S/O YESHWANTRAO JUNGHARE Appellant
V/S
BALU @ DHANRAJ S/O NARAYAN JUNGHARE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati who, by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.3.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.57/ 1997 decided to confirm the judgment and order which was passed by JMFC (Court No.4) Amravati on 11.1.1997 in Criminal Case No.317/ 1990 for offence punishable under sections 326, 448 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"). The learned trial Magistrate had convicted Balu @ Dhanraj Narayan Junghare and Bhupat Narayan Junghare for offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34, IPC and each of them were sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months by each of them. The accused were also found guilty under sections 448 read with section 34, IPC and were directed to suffer RI for three months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.300/ - in default to undergo SI for one month by each of them.

(2.) The facts in brief are that complainant Vinayak Yeshwantrao Junghare was residing in village Rama within the local limits of Walgaon Police Station, Tq. & Dist-Amravati. While complainant was watching Television on 14.9.1990 at about 8.00 to 8.30 hours and serving cattle in the cattle-shed, at that time, the accused entered in the cattle-shed, armed with wooden logs and started beating the complainant and on his waist, back and hands, with the result, the complainant had suffered following injuries :

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate who heard the criminal case found both the accused guilty of offences complained against them under sections 326, 448 read with section 34, IPC. While recording conviction and sentence, the accused were heard on the point of sentence by the learned trial Magistrate. Considering that both the accused were first offenders and had no past conviction against them and further that they were repenting over their act, that they were agriculturists looking after the agricultural fields to earn their bread and middle aged about 30 to 35 years, it was thought not to send them for a longer period in jail since the same would result into hardship to them and their families members. Under these circumstances, recording the reasons for less punishment, the trial Magistrate was pleased to award lesser sentence of one year with fine in the sum of Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine, SI for three months for offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34, IPC; while for offence punishable under section 448, IPC, the sentence was restricted to R.I. for only three months and fine in the sum of Rs.300/- in default S.I. for one month.