Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad v. The State of Maharashtra

1 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD905 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2326 OF 2025 IN APEAL/917/20241.Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad, Age : 63 years, Occupation: Agriculture, District : Jalna. 2. Dnyandev Sakharam Jarhad, Age : 62 years, Occupation: Agriculture, District : Jalna. … ApplicantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent...Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicants; Ms. M. L. Sangit, APP for Respondent-State. ...CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.DATE :28th NOVEMBER, 2025P.C.:-1.This is an application for suspension of sentence awarded bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambad, District Jalna inSessions Case No.41 of 2021 by judgment and order dated 19.09.2024,convicting the Applicants as follows:-“a] Accused No.1 Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad, 2] DnyandevSakharam Jarhad, 4] Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad, 5] KailasRamdas Jarhad & 6] Rajendra Balasaheb Jarhad are herebyconvicted U/sec 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishableunder Section 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code each ofthem is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default each tosuffer rigorous imprisonment of one year. 2 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025b] Accused No.1 Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad, 2] DnyandevSakharam Jarhad, 4] Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad, 5] KailasRamdas Jarhad & 6] Rajendra Balasaheb Jarhad are herebyconvicted U/sec 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishableunder Section 324 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and each ofthem is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default each to sufferrigorous imprisonment of three months. c] Accused No.1 Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad, 2] DnyandevSakharam Jarhad, 4] Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad, 5] KailasRamdas Jarhad & 6] Rajendra Balasaheb Jarhad are herebyconvicted U/sec 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishableunder Section 143 of Indian Penal Code and each of them issentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six monthsand pay fine of Rs.2000/- each in default each to sufferrigorous imprisonment of 15 days. d] Accused No.1 Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad, 2] DnyandevSakharam Jarhad, 4] Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad, 5] KailasRamdas Jarhad & 6] Rajendra Balasaheb Jarhad are herebyconvicted U/sec 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishableunder Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and each of them issentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearand pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default each to suffer simpleimprisonment of 3 months. e] Accused are entitled for set off as per section 428 of Cr.P.C. f] All the substantive sentences imposed upon the accused shallrun concurrently. g] Accused Ramdas Sakharam Jarhad, Dnyandev SakharamJarhad, Vinod Dnyandev Jarhad, Kailas Ramdas Jarhad &Rajendra Balasaheb Jarhad are hereby acquitted underSection 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable underSection 135 of the Bombay Police Act. h] Accused to surrender to their bail bonds.i] On depositing of fine amount and after expiry of period ofappeal the entire amount of fine be paid to injured ShivnathNarayan Patole as compensation as per section 357 of Cr.P.C. j] Case against accused No.3 Sopan Sakharam Jarhad hasalready abated as he died during pendency of this case. k] Muddemal property i.e. Four sticks being worthless, bedestroyed after appeal period is over. 3 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025l] The copy of this judgment be given to accused persons freeof costs. m] The copy of this judgment be forwarded to District LegalServices Authority, Jalna for consideration of compensationto be paid to injured Shivnath as per section 357-A of Cr.P.C.”2.The case of prosecution as can be seen from the relevantparagraphs from the impugned judgment which are reproduced below, is as follows:-“2] The informant Bhanudas Patole was residing in villageParada along with his family. His elder brother Shivnath Patolewas residing adjacent to his house. On 23-05-2014 at about 7 to7.30 PM, he and his elder brother Shivnath were sitting in front oftheir house. At that time, Ramdas Jarhad, Sopan Jarhad, Dnyandeo Jarhad, Vinod Jarhad, Rajendra Jarhad and KailasJarhad (All Accused) came towards informant Bhanudas Patoleand his brother Shivnath Patole having sticks in their hand. Theyasked Shivnath Patole as to why his son Somnath teased theirdaughter and started abusing Shivnath. All of them startedbeating Shivnath Patole by means of sticks. 3] Informant Bhanudas Patole went for saving his brother andat that time, Ramdas Jarhad, Sopan Jarhad, Dnyandeo Jarhad, Rajendra Jarhad (accused) inflicted the blows of sticks on thehead of Shivnath, because of that Shivnath Patole fell on theground and became unconscious. Appasaheb Patole, MadanPatole, Vitthal Patole, Madhukar Patole, Bramhanath Patolerescued the informant and his brother Shivnath Patole from theclutches of all accused. Nephew Navnath Patole and son ofinformant Bhanudas took informant and his elder brotherShivnath in the vehicle of Brahmhanath to the Ambad PoliceStation. After taking letter from Ambad Police station, they tookBhanudas Patole and Shivnath Patole to Sub-District Hospital, Ambad where six stitches were put on the head of BhanudasPatole. The Doctors from Sub-District Hospital, Ambad referredthem to Government Hospital, Jalna for further treatment.4]The condition of Shivnath Patole became critical andtherefore, he was not taken to government Hospital, Aurangabadand was taken to Dhoot Hospital, Aurangabad. The treatment ofBhanudas Patole was going on in Government Hospital, Jalna, where police recorded his statement on 24-05-2014 after 4 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025obtaining the opinion from the Doctors and treated said statementas to FIR.” 2.1.After the investigation, the Applicants and co-convicts werecharge-sheeted and after full-fledged trial, they came to be convicted asabove. 3.It is submitted by learned Advocate for the Applicants that, though this Court by order dated 03.02.2025 in Criminal ApplicationNo.374 of 2025 in this Appeal has rejected the Application forsuspension of sentence and Bail of the co-convicts, namely, Vinod andKailash, the negative parity cannot be applied. For this, he cited thejudgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Yunis & Anr. Vs.State of U.P., 1999 Cri. L.J. 4094, wherein it is observed that, the law ofparity may be applied in granting bail to the co-accused, but cannot beinvoked in rejecting the Bail Application of another co-accused. Hefurther submits that, the Applicants were on bail during the trial andthey are behind bars for a period of 18 months and since the Appeal isadmitted and would not come up for hearing immediately and theApplicants being aged 63 and 62 years, respectively, their sentence besuspended and they be granted bail. He cited the decision of Hon’bleApex Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai & Ors. Vs.State of Gujarat, AIR 1999 SC 1859, in support of his submission that, the sentence is to be suspended, if the sentence is for fixed period, 5 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025unless there are exceptional circumstances. He submits that, ApplicantNo.1-Ramdas was out of the jail on parole for medical treatment andhe has surrendered to the concerned jail. He submits that consideringall these aspects, the Application be allowed. 4.The Application is opposed by the learned APP. She submitsthat, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on thetestimony of the injured witnesses and corroborated by the medicalevidence. She further submits that, the maximum sentence ofconviction awarded by the learned Trial Court is of 10 years and theyare behind bars for a period of 18 months. She submits that theApplication be rejected. 5.The above referred legal principles as enumerated in theabove referred judgments are well settled. With the assistance of boththe sides, gone through the paper-book. The prosecution’s case isprimarily based on the testimony of the injured witnesses. PW1-Bhanudas is the injured witness. In his evidence, he deposed of theincident on 23.05.2014. His evidences show that, another injured-Shivnath was assaulted in the head by the Applicants with the stick. When he intervened, he was also assaulted by the co-convicts. Hedeposed that, the injured-Shivnath become lame. The prosecutionexamined another injured witness-Shivnath as PW4. In his evidence, 6 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025he deposed of the incident of assault on him by the Applicants on23.05.2014 by the sticks on his head. The prosecution was brought onrecord the medical evidence by examining the PW6-Doctor whoexamined the injured PW4-Shivnath on 23.05.2014. The relevant partfrom the evidence of PW6-Doctor is reproduced below:-“2) The patient Shivnath was neurologically serious withglasgow Coma-scale was around 5/15. It comes under veryserious coma. We did the CT Scan of patient. We saw, seriousinjury on the brain. So, I operated him in the morning about03.00 a.m. I found extradural haemotoma bilaterally with sub-arachnoid arachnoid hemorrhage and diffuse axonal injury. Hisbrain was damaged.3) The age of injury was fresh. It was caused by hard andblunt object. The nature of injury was grievous. The braindamaged to the patient cannot be recovered fully. The said injurycauses permanent disabilities for some organs. Muddemalwooden sticks now shown to me. The injuries sustained by thepatient can be possible by such wooden sticks. Now, MLC sheetand MLC information paper now shown to me are one and same.It bears my signature, it is marked at Exh. 84 and Exh. 85.Accordingly, I issued certificate. Certificate now shown to me.It’s contents are correct. It bears my signature and office seal. Itis marked at Exh. 86. I have also taken the thumb impression ofpatient as a identity on MLC Sheet. Examination-in-chief is over.”6.The testimony of medical officer is supported with themedical papers. 7.It is needless to state that, the testimony of injured witnessstands on the higher pedestal. The medical evidence show theseriousness of the injury caused in the assault by the Applicants to theinjured-Shivnath. On the basis of the evidence available on record, 7 of 7 905-APPLN.2326.2025learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Applicants. Considering these aspects of the matter, in my view, this is not a fit casefor suspension of sentence and grant of Bail of the Applicants. Hence, the Application is rejected. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)Tauseef