Bombay High Court
Shakuntala Ramakant Swami vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 23 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7682
REVN-105-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2024
Shakuntala W/o. Ramakant Swami,
Age : 48 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Andhori, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur. ... Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Kingaon,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
2. Irappa @ Balaji S/o. Dnyanoba Shingde,
Age : 33 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
3. Vatsalabai w/o. Dnyanoba Shingde,
Age : 58 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
No.2 and 3 both R/o. Andhori,
Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents
(R-2 & 3 accused nos.1 and 2)
.....
Mr. Santosh B. Gastgar, Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Avinash Lavharale h/f. Ms. Prajakta P. Deshmukh, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 18 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. Revisionist/original complainant, who set law into motion vide
FIR No.05 of 2015 for offence punishable under sections 452, 294, 323, 504
REVN-105-2024
-2-
and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is dissatisfied by order
of acquittal passed by learned First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.
12 of 2022 setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.2), Ahmedpur in R.C.C.
No.63 of 2015 passed on 11.10.2022.
2. Learned counsel for revisionist would point out that, alleged
incident is of 29.01.2015. That, officials of Grampanchayat had come for
measurement of their house property. That time, accused initially prevented
them from carrying out measurement and further assaulted husband of
revisionist Ramakant, and subsequently forced in her house and assaulted
her. That, report to that extent was lodged and crime was registered.
3. He next submitted that, prosecution before the trial court had
adduced evidence of almost nine witnesses including that of her husband
Ramakant, who was also victim. That, there was also evidence of
independent witnesses, who had intervened and rescued the quarrel. Thus,
case of prosecution was proved by adducing evidence of informant herself
as well as her husband and independent witnesses. Medical expert was also
examined, and therefore, prosecution story regarding assault causing injury
and committing trespass was made out before learned trial court, which has
correctly appreciated the prosecution case and recorded guilt of the
accused.
REVN-105-2024
-3-
4. According to learned counsel for revisionist, above judgment
was well reasoned and sound, and on the basis of both ocular and
documentary evidence, there was no infirmity or error on the part of
learned trial court, and as such, learned First Appellate Court ought not to
have interfered, but it did so, and rather overturned the well reasoned
judgment of learned trial court and acquitted the accused. According to
learned counsel, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence and even when
case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt has been given.
Therefore, he prays to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents original accused
would point out that, there was false implication due to previous enmity.
That, evidence of complainant and her husband was not inspiring
confidence. That, injuries suffered were shown to be due to fall. That,
witnesses were not consistent on the alleged occurrence, and moreover,
complainant herself had not seen the occurrence and she herself has not
lodged report, but it is at the behest of her nephew, but said witness was
not examined, and therefore, when learned trial court convicted the
respondents original accused on above evidence, learned First Appellate
Court has rightly interfered. For above reasons, he justifies the order of
acquittal and prays to dismiss the revision for want of merits.
REVN-105-2024
-4-
6. This being revision, while exercising powers under section 397
of Cr.P.C., this court is merely expected to test the legality, propriety or
illegality in the findings recorded by learned trial court. Such powers are to
be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and when there are clearing
errors on the face of order or there is failure and non compliance of law. Re-
appreciation is to be avoided unless findings are patently perverse and as
such, is the narrow scope of revisional court. Law regarding the scope of
revision is elucidated in catena of judgments. Though there are catena of
judgments, the landmark judgment of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
another (2012) 9 SCC 460 is relied and the relevant observations therein
are borrowed and quoted as under :
“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to
call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of
any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction
or law. There has to be a well -founded error and it may not be
appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be
in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments
of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly
erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the
finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or
REVN-105-2024
-5-perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely
indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction
of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised
in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it
should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The
Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the
Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has
been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given
case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the
categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.”
7. Keeping the above settled legal position on record, evidence
and impugned order are put to scrutiny.
8. Re-appreciated and re-analyzed the entire evidence. Here,
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted the respondents for
offence punishable under sections 451 and 323 of IPC by judgment and
order dated 11.10.2022. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was the
First Appellate Court allowed the appeal of respondents original accused
bearing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2022.
REVN-105-2024
-6-
9. As pointed out, though complainant Shakuntalabai has
deposed in the capacity of PW1, in cross examination, she admitted that
report was written by her nephew, but admittedly he is not examined.
Learned First Appellate Court has doubted the prosecution version, more
particularly testimony of complainant on the ground that it is doubtful
whether she is an eye witness. On those lines, if evidence of this witness is
considered, indeed, this PW1 has stated that while she was in the house,
hearing chaos, she came out and at that time, she claims that both accused
had met her at the doors and they assaulted her.
10. Therefore, she is not party to the alleged assault on her
husband Ramakant regarding which she deposed.
11. According to PW1 complainant, Balaji hit her on the head,
resulting in bleeding. As regards to injuries suffered by her, from the
medical certificate placed on record, there does not seem to appear to be
history of assault and on the contrary, history is reported due to fall on
account of giddiness.
12. Therefore, learned First Appellate Court rightly observed that,
PW1 complainant, who has set law into motion, cannot be said to be a
direct eye witness.
13. PW2 Ramakant is the husband of complainant. According to
REVN-105-2024
-7-
him, while measurement was going on, at that time, Balaji came out of the
house with stick, claimed ownership and possession of the land and
objected to the measurement. According to him, Balaji assaulted on his
thigh and abused him. He attributed beating to both Balaji as well as
Vatsalabai. He also stated that, hearing the commotion, her wife came at
the doors of house and at that time, both accused went towards the house
and even Balaji again assaulted her too with the stick on the thigh and
hands. Whereas Vatsalabai caught hold of her heir and banged it on the
floor and thereafter abused her.
In cross, he admitted that, there are court proceedings lodged
against father of accused.
14. PW3 Bapurao stated that, he acted as panch to panchanama
(Exh.26) i.e. spot panchanama. PW4 Dnyanoba is panch to seizure of stick,
but it is of 06.02.2015 i.e. at the very belated stage when the alleged
occurrence is of 29.01.2015.
15. PW5 Dattatray is an acquaintance of both accused and
complainant and according to him, while he was at the spot while
measurement is going on, Balaji hit stick to Ramakant and he also beat wife
of Ramakant, whereas accused no.2 gave slaps and abused. However, in
cross, he admitted that, father of accused no.1 happens to be his maternal
REVN-105-2024
-8-
uncle and there is properly dipute between them. However, he expressed
ignorance about any civil dispute between complainant and Dnyanoba.
16. PW6 Dnyaneshwar is the Investigating Officer. PW7 Waman
stated that, both accused assaulted Ramakant on leg with stick. His version
is contrary to that of very complainant as complainant has alleged assault
by accused no.1 Balaji on Ramakant and not both accused. There is
recovery of only one stick so as to both accused assaulted by means of stick.
Therefore, his testimony is not credible.
17. Therefore, with above quality of evidence, there are reasons to
extend the benefit of doubt as complainant’s version and her husband’s
version do not tally about the actual occurrence, and moreover, there is
belated FIR. Admittedly, parties are an inimical terms, and therefore, with
such quality of evidence, when learned First Appellate Court has granted
benefit of doubt, there being no reason to discard such findings. This court
also does not find any reason to interfere in the same. Hence, the following
order is passed :-
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
