Bombay High Court
Bandu Haribhau Ghule And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:18102
1 Cr.Appeal844.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
993 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 844 OF 2024
1. Bandu s/o Haribhau Ghule
Age : 52 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Takali, Taluka Kaij,
District Beed.
2. Jalinder Vishwanath Ghule
Age : 45 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o Vikhe Patil Karkhana,
Taluka Kaij, District Beed. ... Appellants
[Orig. Accused Nos. 1 & 9]
Versus
. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Ambajogai Rural,
Taluka Ambajogai, District Beed. ... Respondent
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S. S. Thombre
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. V. M. Jaware
Advocate for Informant & Victim : Ms. Amita Chate (Through VC)
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 09.07.2025
PER COURT:
1. Heard Mr. S. S. Thombre, learned counsel for the appellants,
Mr. V. M. Jaware, learned APP for the respondent / State and Ms. Amita
Chate (Through VC) for the informant and victim.
2 Cr.Appeal844.2024
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial
court has recorded conviction under Section 365 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, convicting the appellants and has awarded sentence of
imprisonment for 5 years. The sentence awarded by the trial court reads
as under:
" :: O R D E R ::
(1) Accused Nos. 1 and 9 respectively Bandu Haribhau
Ghule and Jalindar Vishvnath Ghule are convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 342,
346, 363 and 365 r/w. 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide
provision of Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
(2) However, as discussed above, since the offences
punishable under sections 341, 342 r/w. 149 are minor as
compared to the offence punishable under section 346 r/w.
149 of IPC, the accused are not separately sentenced for the
offences punishable under sections 341 and 342 of IPC.
Similarly, since the offence punishable under section 363
r/w. 149 is minor as compared to the offence under section
365 r/w. 149 of IPC, the accused are not separately
sentenced for the offence punishable under section 363 r/w.
149 of IPC.
(a) The accused Nos.1 and 9 Bandu Haribhau Ghule and
Jalindar Vishvnath Ghule are sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of
Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only), each, in default
imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under
section 143 of IPC 1860.
(b) They are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period
of six months and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only)
each in default imprisonment for 15 days for the offence
punishable under section 147 of IPC 1860.
(c) They are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period
of one year and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only)
3 Cr.Appeal844.2024
each in default imprisonment for 15 days for the offence
punishable under section 323 r/w. 149 of IPC 1860.
(d) They are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period
of three years and fine of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only)
each in default imprisonment for one month for the offence
punishable under section 346 of IPC 1860.
(e) They are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period
of five years and fine of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only)
each in default imprisonment for one month for the offence
punishable under section 365 of IPC 1860.
(3) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently."
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there
were certain transactions between the parties and he submits that
advance was given to the informant's husband and that in terms of the
advances paid the informant's husband he was supposed to provide
sugarcane labourer to the sugar factory alternatively to return the money.
On acceptance of payment labourers were not supplied. The money was
also not returned and, thus, there was possibility that the appellants
could have initiated legal proceedings against the husband of the
informant. As such, to avoid the situation, the case of kidnapping was
registered against the appellants. However, the trial court has recorded
conviction after considering the evidence.
4. The case against the appellants is that on 18.04.2011, while
the informant and her husband were returning towards the village, their
motorcycle was intercepted by a Scoripio jeep and unknown persons,
4 Cr.Appeal844.2024
who alighted from the vehicle, initially trapped her husband in a net,
beat him and forcibly took him in the vehicle and kidnapped her
husband. It is also stated that the victim has also given names of number
of persons including the present appellants as the persons who have
kidnapped the victim. It is also stated that there were two eye witnesses
for the incident.
5. The trial court has appreciated the evidence placed on record
and formulated the points and rendered findings thereon as under:
9. Following Points arise for determination of this Court. Court records its findings thereon for
reasons to be recorded below.
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1) Whether prosecution proves that all the accused Partly Yes to the extent
formed an unlawful assembly and were its of accused Nos.1 & 9.
member with a view to kidnap the Balasaheb
Sidram, wrongfully confine him and to cause
decoity and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860?
2) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused used force or violence being the member of accused Nos.1 & 9.
of an unlawful assembly, in prosecution of the
common object of said assembly and thereby
committed an offence of rioting punishable under
section 147 the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
3) Whether prosecution proves that all above No.
accused, armed with deadly weapons, used force
or violence being the member of an unlawful
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly and thereby committed an offence
of rioting punishable under section 148 the Indian
Penal Code, 1860?
4) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused, being the member of an unlawful of accused Nos.1 & 9.
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly, voluntarily caused hurt to the
Balasaheb Sidram Rathod and thereby committed
an offence punishable under section 323 r/w. 149
the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
5 Cr.Appeal844.2024
5) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused, being the member of an unlawful of accused Nos.1 & 9.
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly, wrongfully restrained the
Balasaheb Sidram Rathod from proceeding
towards his desire direction of Radi tanda and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 341 r/w. 149 the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
6) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused, being the member of an unlawful of accused Nos.1 & 9.
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly, wrongfully confined the Balasaheb
Sidram Rathod and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 342 r/w. 149 the Indian
Penal Code, 1860?
7) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused, being the member of an unlawful of accused Nos.1 & 9.
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly, wrongfully confined the Balasaheb
Sidram Rathod in such a manner that it may not
be known to any person and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 346 r/w. 149 the
Indian Penal Code, 1860?
8) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused, being the member of an unlawful of accused Nos.1 & 9.
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly, kidnapped the Balasaheb Sidram
Rathod and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 363 r/w. 149 the Indian
Penal Code, 1860?
9) Whether prosecution proves that all above Partly Yes to the extent
accused, being the member of an unlawful of accused Nos.1 & 9.
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of
said assembly, kidnapped the Balasaheb Sidram
Rathod with an intention of causing him to be
secretly and wrongfully confine him and thereby
committed an offence punishable under section
365 r/w. 149 the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
10) Whether prosecution proves that all above In the negative.
accused, being five or more persons conjointly
snatched away the gold ornament, cash and / or
mobile phone with sim cards of and from the
Balasaheb Rathod and thereby committed an
offence of decoity punishable under section 395
the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
11) What Order? As per final order.
6 Cr.Appeal844.2024
It was held that the present appellants had kidnapped the
husband of the informant. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that there is no evidence that the victim was
kidnapped for the period of 29 days and, although, near about eleven
names were taken as the accused who had kidnapped the informant's
husband only 2 of them are convicted for the said offence. He submits
that there is no evidence to indicate that the informant's husband was
kidnapped for 29 days. The informant's husband himself appeared and
that he has sustained injuries before 2 to 3 days prior. In any event, the
learned counsel submits that the case arises out of civil dispute.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that
the informant, victim and the appellants have settled their dispute and
the informant and victim have also filed the affidavits before this court
that they have no objection if the dispute is resolved and that the
affidavits are filed by the victim and the informant. The same has been
verified before the Registrar of this court. The present appellants is in
custody for last 9 months, as such, the appellants submits that the
conviction be maintained and the sentence be reduced to the sentence
undergone.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that
there is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence. The learned
7 Cr.Appeal844.2024
APP has submitted that once the conviction is maintained the sentence
can be imposed at the discretion of the court depending upon the fact
situation.
8. In view of the above and considering the submissions, more
particularly, that the offence as alleged has arisen out of civil transaction
and, also, considering the affidavits filed by the victim and informant, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(I) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The impugned conviction is maintained and the impugned sentence imposed therein is reduced to undergone. The fine amount already imposed is also made a part of sentence. The bail bonds of the appellants, if any, shall stand cancelled.
(III) The appellants BANDU HARIBHAU GHULE and JALINDER VISHWANATH GHULE shall be released unless required in any other case.
(IV) The impugned order dated 04.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Ambajogai stands modified accordingly to the extent of present appellants.
(V) The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] marathe