Case Note & Summary
The revision application was filed by the son of the original accused, Balasaheb Nivrutti Jagtap, who died during the pendency of the criminal appeal. The accused was prosecuted for offences under Sections 323, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, a conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Department, alleged that on 21st November 1998, while on duty at Satara ST stand, the accused approached him, caught his neck, and assaulted him with fists, causing bleeding injuries. The driver intervened and took both to the police station, leading to registration of CR No.429 of 1998. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was numbered as Regular Criminal Case No.328 of 1998. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months for each offence. The appeal before the Sessions Court was dismissed. The legal issue was whether the concurrent findings of conviction warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The court noted that the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the complainant (PW1) and a panch witness for recovery of clothes. The court found no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the concurrent findings, as the testimony of the complainant was credible and supported by medical evidence. The revision was dismissed, upholding the conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Assault on Public Servant - Sections 323, 332, 353 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction upheld - The accused assaulted a bus conductor (public servant) while on duty at ST stand - Trial court and appellate court concurrently found guilt based on credible testimony of complainant and medical evidence - Revision dismissed as no illegality or perversity found (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 323, 332 and 353 IPC warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 323, 332 and 353 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Assault on public servant while discharging duty
- conviction under Sections 323
- 332
- 353 IPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- limited scope of revision
- no perversity or illegality
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 70
Criminal Revision Application No.52 of 2005
Mr. Dilip Bodke, Mr. Umesh B. Yadav for applicant; Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar, APP for State
Ganesh Balasaheb Jagtap (legal heir of deceased accused Balasaheb Nivrutti Jagtap)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction for assault on public servant
Remedy Sought
The legal heir of the deceased accused sought to challenge the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 323, 332 and 353 IPC.
Filing Reason
The accused was convicted by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court; the revision was filed by the legal heir after the accused's death.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused on 12th December 2000; Sessions Court dismissed appeal on 29th November 2004.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 323, 332 and 353 IPC warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence and that the complainant's testimony was unreliable.
The State supported the concurrent findings, submitting that the evidence was credible and no interference was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
In revisional jurisdiction, the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The testimony of the complainant, being a public servant on duty, coupled with medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain conviction.
Judgment Excerpts
This revision application is contested by the son of original accused late Balasaheb Nivrutti Jagtap, who died pending Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2000, which was preferred challenging the judgment of conviction.
The accused was prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 323, 332 and 353 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC').
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows...
Procedural History
The accused was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara on 12th December 2000. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 29th November 2004. The legal heir of the deceased accused filed the present revision application in 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 323, 332, 353
