Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Pandit Gaikwad And Ors on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31831-DB
C-CriAppeal543-03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
Through Police Station, Umri (Ori. Complainant)
Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded
VERSUS
1. Pandit s/o Laxman Gaikwad
Age 20 years, Occu: Labourer
2. Digambar s/o Laxman Gaikwad ... Respondents
Age 22 years, Occu: Agri (Orig. Accused)
3. Kishan s/o Kerba Zunjare
Age 20 years, Occu: Education
4. Ananda s/o Shankar Zunjare
Age 31 years, Occu: Unemployed
All R/o Jakbgaon Tq. Bhokar Dist. Nanded
Mr. N. S. Takale, APP for the Appellant-State
Ms. Sonali Veer, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondents-accused
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04.11.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.11.2025
JUDGMENT (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.)
1. The prosecution has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, assailing judgment and order dated 23.04.2003 passed by the learned Joint District Judge & Page 1 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1995, thereby, the respondents/accused are convicted for the offences punishable under section 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing the accused, they are released under Sections 3,4 and 6 the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond of Rs.5,000/- each with surety, to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for a period of three years with direction to appear and receive the sentence as and when called for and in the meantime, maintain good behaviour and to maintain peace. However, the respondents/accused are acquitted for the offences punishable under section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr. N. S. Tekale, learned APP for the appellant/State and Ms. Sunita Veer, learned counsel appointed for the respondents/accused.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one Maroti Laxman Jirewar was running the Grocery shop at Jambagaon Tq. Bhokar Dist. Nanded. Accused No.1 Pandit Laxman Gaikwad and Accused No. 2 Digambar Laxman Gaikwad are the real brothers and sons of Smt. Renukabai. Whereas the Accused No. 3 Kishan and Accused No. 4 Ananda are the brothers of Smt. Renukabai and maternal uncles of the Accused Nos. 1 & 2. Shri Maroti (deceased), allegedly had illicit relations with Smt. Renukabai for last 20 years, which Accused Nos. 1 to 4 did not like. Page 2 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03 Therefore, they threatened Shri Maroti (deceased) to discontinue said illicit relations but, the deceased Maroti did not pay any heed to their threats and allegedly continued with the illicit relations.
4. On fateful night of 29.12.1995, at about 1.00 a.m., all these accused persons visited the house of deceased Maroti and belaboured and assaulted him with stone, kicks and fist blows, due to which the deceased received injuries. Some villagers/neighbourers were assembled and the injured Maroti was taken to Hospital at Umri. Statement of injured was recorded at Exh.49 by ASI- Sk. Jamil (PW-9). On the basis of said statement, Crime No. 169 of 1995 was registered with Police Station Umri for the offences under sections 448, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. PW-9-Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and drawn spot Panchanama Exh. 29 and seized articles Stones under Seizure panchnama Exh. 30. However, the injured Maroti succumbed to the injuries on 01.01.1996. Accordingly, inquest Panchanama Exh. 41 was drawn on the dead body of deceased Maroti. The dead body of the deceased was sent for the post-mortem at Hospital, Umri. Accused 1 to 3 came to be arrested on 02.01.1996 under arrest panchnama Exh. 32 to 34. Since the injured died while hospitalization, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added in Crime No. 169 of 1995. The Medical Officer Page 3 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 Dr. Satyanarayan Badrinarayan Punpale (PW-8) conducted autopsy on the dead body and opined that death of deceased caused due to fracture of thoracic vertebra and spinal cord injury and issued provisional postmortem Report Exh. 44 and Postmortem Report Exh. 43. On completion of investigation, respondents/accused are charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 452 read with section 34 IPC.
6. Learned trial court framed charges Exh. 17 as against the Respondents/ Accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 452 read with section 34 IPC. The Respondents/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, their plea was recorded at Exh. 18 to 21 respectively.
7. In order to bring home guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Tukaram Rajaram Sawant (Exh.28), PW-2 Shivaji Manikrao Sawant(Exh.31), PW 3 Bhimrao Bhagwan Dhage (Exh.35), P. W. 4 Pundlik Laxman Jirewar (Exh.36), PW-5 Nagorao Pundlik Sawant (Exh.37), PW-6 Pandurang Vithalrao Jirewar (Exh.38), PW-7 Madhukar Bapurao Wagh (Exh.40), PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Badrinarayan Punpale (Exh.42), PW-9 ASI Sk. Jamil Sk. Kadar (Exh.48), PW-10 Dr. Jaipal Maroti Chavan (Exh.53),and PW-11 Sanjay Laxmanrao Pawar(Exh.56).
8. Besides Oral evidence, the prosecution proved following documentary evidence as under:
Page 4 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03 Sr. Documentary Evidence Exhibit No. Page No. No. 1 Spot Panchanama 29 49 to 50 2 Seizure Panchanama 30 51 to 52 3 Inquest Panchanama 41 71 to 72 4 Post-Mortem Report 43 75 to 82 5 Provisional Post-mortem 44 83 Report 6 Statement of Nagorao S/o 57 93 to 94 Panditrao Savant 7 Daily diary 58 95 After the evidence is over, statements of accused recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Exh. 18, 19, 20 and 21.
9. Defence of the respondents/accused is that they had hoisted flag of Anna Bhau Sathe and the complainant party were claiming that place under the flagpost. Deceased was beaten by thieves. The Respondent/ Accused have totally denied the commission offence. According to the Accused some other persons, who attempted robbery, might have caused homicidal death of the deceased, hence, prayed for acquittal.
10. On 23.04.2003, the learned Joint District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded passed the impugned judgment and order holding that accused persons had threatened deceased Maroti and they had intention only to beat the deceased and not to kill him. So also, Respondents/accused persons beat the deceased by kick and fist blows which proves that the accused neither had intention nor having knowledge Page 5 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 that by their act, the injured Maroti would die. So also, external injuries were not serious. Injured Maroti had suffered injuries due to his old age and the respondents/accused did not carry any weapon with them. The cause of death of deceased is not a direct result of assault by the respondents/accused persons. Therefore, the respondents/ accused had no intention to cause homicidal death of the deceased. However, death of deceased caused due to fracture of rib, which was ancillary effect of kick and fist blows and deceased did not die immediately. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the offence as against the respondents/ accused under section 302 IPC but, the said act certainly falls within ambit of Section 325 IPC and therefore, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
11. Learned APP canvassed in vehemence that the trial court failed to consider the substantial evidence available on record which proves that the deceased had illicit relations with the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2 Therefore, the accused persons were having intention to grind their axe against the deceased Maroti. Further, during assault, the injuries sustained to the accused are proved by PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale and thus, the injuries were sustained to the deceased due to assault on vital part of accused persons and death of deceased caused due to fracture of thoracic vertebra and spinal cord injury. However, the learned trial court failed to consider substantial evidence and wrongly passed the impugned order. Page 6 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03
12. Learned APP further canvassed that the learned trial court failed to consider the medical evidence, oral evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-
8), postmortem report Exh. 83, which proves that there was fracture to thoracic vertebra and injury to spinal cord of the deceased. The evidence of the prosecution witness proves that the accused persons used stones while assaulting the deceased. The accused persons assaulted the deceased with kicks and fist blows, which resulted in a fracture of the thoracic vertebra and injury to the spinal cord of the deceased, who was 60 years old at the time of incident and as such the accused assaulted the deceased with an intention and knowledge that, due to assault, homicidal death of the deceased would be caused. Further, the accused persons were having knowledge before mounting assault upon the deceased and they delaboured the deceased by using their muscle power. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse, bad in law, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the same.
13. It is further canvassed on behalf of the prosecution that the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that the accused visited the house of deceased in odd hours, and by entering in his house courtyard, assaulted him, which proves the preparation and intention of the accused persons to cause injuries to the deceased and, therefore, the offence punishable under section 452 IPC is established. However, the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in prospective manner and Page 7 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 recorded perverse findings. It is further canvassed that, the prosecution led sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, the learned trial court failed to appreciate the same, hence, prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order and to award appropriate sentence to the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code or in the alternative, the prosecution prayed for awarding conviction to the accused under section 304 Part II and Section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents accused supported the findings recorded by the learned trial court. It is canvassed that though the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses, however, the prosecution failed to bring substantial evidence on record to prove that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with an intention to cause his homicidal death. However, evidence of the prosecution witness proves that the accused persons were having intention to teach lesson to the deceased to restrain him from maintaining illicit relations with Smt. Renukabai, the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sister of Accused 3 &
4. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove motive of the Respondent- Accused to cause homicidal death of the deceased. The offence under section 300 punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not Page 8 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 at all proved as against the respondents /accused. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial court are just and proper.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused further canvassed that the prosecution examined PW-8 Medical Officer Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale at Exh.42 who had conducted post-mortem of dead body of Maroti Laxman Jirewar and found injuries. However, all the injuries described in postmortem report Exh. 83 are caused due to assault by stone, kicks and fist blows. The PW-8 Medical Officer opined that the injuries can be caused by hard and blunt object. The intention of the respondents/ accused to beat the injured (deceased ) was just to teach him lesson or to restrain him from maintaining illicit relations with the mother of Respondents/accused Nos. 1 & 2 but there was no intention to cause homicidal death of the deceased. The learned trial court has recorded just and proper findings, hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
16. It is further canvassed on behalf of the respondents/accused that in cross examination, PW-8 Medical Officer admitted that injuries mentioned in Column No.17 of postmortem report are of simple nature and the age of injuries has not been exactly opined. So also, injuries 2 to 4 in Column No. 17 of the Postmortem Report Exh. 43 are not on vital part of the body of the deceased. However, the Medical Officer PW-8 opined that multiple fracture of the thoracic vertebra with spinal cord Page 9 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 injuries might have occurred due to falling of deceased on hard and blunt object during scuffle. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove motive of the Respondents/Accused to caused homicidal death of the deceased.
17. It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondents/accused that, evidence of the prosecution witness does not show that the accused persons assaulted with any hard and blunt object on the spinal cord of the deceased. Therefore, in absence of cogent and substantial evidence, it can not be held that the respondents/accused committed any offence punishable under sections 302, 304 Part II and Section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
18. Since, for the criminal appellate court dealing with criminal appeal it is permissible and mandated by law to re-appreciate and revisit the evidence, we would like to consider the evidence that has been led before the learned trial court.
19. On face of record, it appears that PW-1 Tukaram Rajaram Sawant witnessed scuffle near Maroti Jirewar's house and signed Panchanama Exh. 30 for seizure of stones by the Police and confirmed seizure of stones i.e. Articles 1 to 3. PW-1 deposed that he did not observe any theft. In cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he did not witness the incidents as he was present at his house at the time of incident and his house is about 200 Page 10 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 feet away from the house of deceased Maroti. PW-1 admitted that shop and house of deceased Maroti are different and he does not know the name of deceased's wife.
20. PW-2 Shivaji Manikrao Sawant appears to be the witness to arrest panchanama and seizure of clothes of accused persons at the police station. PW-2 admitted that there were no injuries over the person of either of the accused. As per arrest Panchanamas Exh. 32, 33 & 34, no bloodstains were found on clothes of the accused and no injuries were found on the body of the accused.
21. PW-3 Bhimrao Bhagwan Dhage (Exh. 35) deposed that on fateful night, he was in Dattamandir for Bhajan recitals and at that time he heard shouts of scuffle from the house of Maroti Jirewar (deceased) about "melo, melo, vachwa" (Died, Died, Save). Therefore, he visited near the shop of deceased and saw that, the accused No. 4 Ananda, Accused No. 2 Digambar, Accused No.1 Pandit and Accused No. 3 Kishan were belabouring the deceased Maroti. He further stated that accused persons beat the deceased with kicks and fist blows and they were asking Maroti to stop illicit relations with Renukabai, mother of accused Digambar and Pandit. Accused No. 4 Ananda and accused no. 3 Kishan are brothers of Renukabai. The accused persons were asking Maroti (deceased) to stop illicit relations else they would beat and kill him. In cross examination Page 11 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 PW-3 stated that when he reached at the spot, after hearing the shouts, Shankar, Laxman, Sambha were not present near the house of Maroti.
22. PW-4 Pundlik Laxman Jirewar deposed at Exh. 36 who appears to be an eye witness. He claimed that he saw Accused No. 1 Pandit, Accused No.4 Ananda, and Accused No.3 Kishan while assaulting the deceased Maroti with kicks and fist blows and the Accused No. 2 Digambar hit Maroti (deceased) with stone and after his intervention, the accused person left the spot. PW-4 further deposed that the accused persons, who are brothers and sons of Renukabai, had threatened the deceased Maroti over his illicit relations with Renukabai and the accused asked Maroti to discontinue with said illicit relations else they would beat him. However, on perusal of cross examination of PW-4, there appears to be inconsistencies about his presence and witnessing the incident, because Maroti was being beaten when he reached, whereas, testimony of PW-5 Nagorao shows that PW-4 Pundlik said that the accused beat Maroti. Therefore, if we consider over all evidence of PW-4 Pundlik, PW-5 Nagorao and PW-6 Pandurang, it apparently shows that, the accused persons were found at the spot and they assaulted the deceased Maroti and Pundlik PW- 4 was present at the time of incident. Therefore, the defence took by the respondents/ accused in their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that thieves assaulted the deceased Maroti does not appear to be substantial and probable defence.
Page 12 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03
23. As per testimony of PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale at Exh. 42, the deceased Maroti had contusions over left elbow, right knee, left upper arm which are simple injuries, in addition to one contusion over left temple region. PW-8 Medical Officer testified on internal examination about noticing some bruises over inter costal muscles, thoracic and vertebra were fractured. The cumulative effect of the injury was death. PW-8 Medical Officer opined that the injuries on temple region can be taken on vital part and death of deceased caused due to the thoracic vertebrae fracture and spinal cord injuries. Accordingly, he issued postmortem report Exh. 43.
24. The prosecution examined PW-9 Shaikh Jalil Sk. Kadar, ASI who was attached to Police Station Umri and recorded statement of injured Maroti Jirewar in the Government Hospital at Umri after obtaining certificate from Dr. Chavan about consciousness of the patient, which appears to be dying declaration of the deceased Maroti. PW-9 deposed that Maroti had told him that, on 29.12.1995, during night hours, the accused persons (1) Pandit, (2) Digambar, (3) Kishan and (4) Ananda, dragged him from his shop and beat him. In cross examination, PW-9 stated that he cannot tell what was written by the Doctor i.e., "if the patient was conscious prior to recording of statement of the patient". So also, he has not mentioned time in Exh. 49 while putting signature by deceased Maroti.
Page 13 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03
25. PW-10 Dr. Jaipal Maroti Chavan deposed at Exh. 53 about recording statement of the injured by police person (PW-9) and he put endorsement that the patients was conscious while recording his statement. Therefore, it appears that the evidence of PW-9 Shaikh Jalil and PW-10 Dr. Chavan is consistent to the fact that Doctor was present while recording statement of the deceased Maroti and no contradiction is brought on record to that effect.
26. Evidence of PW-11 API Sanjay Laxmanrao Pawar reveals that, the doors of neighbours of the deceased were chained from outside and Shankar, Sambha and Laxman unchained the doors. Therefore, they were basic eyewitnesses but those persons were not examined by the prosecution. On perusal of entire evidence, it prima facie depicts intention and motive of the accused person to beat the deceased in order to teach him lesson over the illicit relations with Renukabai, the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sister of accused nos. 3 and 4. Further, all these accused persons threatened the deceased to stop the said illicit relations with Renukabai. However, the evidence of prosecution witnesses and evidence of Medical Officer PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale as well as postmortem report Exh. 43 does not suggest that, the accused persons assaulted the deceased with deadly weapon to cause his homicidal death but it prima facie appears to teach him lesson in order to discontinue the illicit relations with Renukabai. Further, the injuries described in Exh. 43 postmortem Page 14 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 report appears to be contusions over left temple region, left elbow, right knee, left upper arm. On internal examination, there appears linear bruises over inter costal muscles and rib cartilage on back, thoracic spine and vertebra at T-3, T-4 levels were fractured. PW-8 Medical Officer admitted that injuries described in column No. 17 of postmortem report Exh 43 are of simple nature but denied that injury No.1 was not on vital part. Therefore, considering the postmortem report and injury certificate, it prima facie appears that accused persons were having intention only to beat Maroti and not to kill him.
27. Section 299 IPC defines culpable homicide, which consists three acts viz. (a) with intention of causing death; (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; (c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Therefore, "intent" and "knowledge" as the essential ingredients of section 299 IPC, postulates the existence of a positive mental attitude and this mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the offence. Section 300 IPC provides Murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death or the person to whom the harm is caused; or if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or if the person Page 15 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
28. In case of State of UP Vs. Virendra Prasad, 2004 SC 1517:
2004 Cr. LJ 1373, it has been held that under third clause of Section 300 IPC culpable homicide is murder, if both the following conditions are satisfied i.e. (a) that the act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death or is done with the intention of causing a bodily injury; and (b) that the injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, in case in hand mens rea to commit murder of the deceased is absent and assault on deceased Maroti at the hands of respondents/accused does not appear to be intentional to cause his homicidal death.
29. In Case of Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217, the Hon'ble Apex court summarized the principles to invoke four exceptional requirements as follows:
(i) it was a sudden fight;
(ii) there was no premeditation;
(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and
(iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
Page 16 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03 The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly".
30. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2011) 9 SCC 462] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order to hold whether an offence would fall under Section 302 or Section 304 Part I of the Code, the courts have to be extremely cautious in examining whether the same falls under Section 300 of the Code which states whether a culpable homicide is murder, or would it fall under its five exceptions which lay down when culpable homicide is not murder. In other words, Section 300 states both, what is murder and what is not. First finds place in Section 300 in its four stated categories, while the second finds detailed mention in the stated five exceptions to Section 300. The legislature in its wisdom, thus, covered the entire gamut of culpable homicide that 'amounting to murder' as well as that 'not amounting to murder' in a composite manner in Section 300 of the Code. Sections 302 and 304 of the Code are primarily the punitive provisions. Page 17 of 20
C-CriAppeal543-03 They declare what punishment a person would be liable to be awarded, if he commits either of the offences.
31. In Muthu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2007) 7 Supreme 547] , it has been stated that in the heat of the moment people sometimes do act which aren't premeditated. Hence, the law provides that while those who commit acts in a fit or anger should also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. We are satisfied that Muthu was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence.
32. In case in hand it prima facie appears that the Respondents accused beat the deceased Maroti by kicks and fist blows which is sufficient to draw conclusion that, they were not having intention nor having knowledge that by such act, Maroti would die. Needless to say that external injuries as described in postmortem report Exh 43 are not severe and considering the age of Maroti(deceased), the injuries which he suffered, caused his death. Nonetheless, the respondents/accused did not carry any weapon with them but they had only intention to teach lesson to the deceased and to restrain him from maintaining illicit relations with Smt. Renukabai. Further, the death of deceased Maroti is not a direct reason of any assault by the accused person. Therefore, in our considered Page 18 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 view, assault on Maroti (deceased) was not with an intention to kill him but the fracture of ribs could be the ancillary effect of kicks and fists blows.
33. Needless to say that in midnight of 29.12.1995, all these accused persons belaboured Maroti (deceased) from his house and assaulted with stone, kicks and fist blows. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital at Umri and on 01.01.1996, injured Maroti succumbed to the injuries i.e. after four days. Therefore, it is not the case of homicidal death. However, considering the evidence of PW-8 Dr. Satyanarayan Punpale, it certainly falls within the ambit of voluntarily causing grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 322 IPC punishable under section 325 of IPC.
34. The learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2023 and held that the assault on deceased Maroti cannot be said to be with an intention to kill him. The fracture to the rib of deceased Maroti was the ancillary effect of kicks and fist blows and he did not die immediately. So also, subsequent threat that they would break arms and leg of the deceased, cannot be the cause of homicidal death as well as the accused persons had neither intended nor they had knowledge that by such assault Maruti (deceased) would die. Therefore, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents/accused persons for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC but convicted them for the offence Page 19 of 20 C-CriAppeal543-03 punishable under section 325 r/w section 34 IPC and instead of sentencing them at once, they were released on executing bond for Rs.5000/- with surety to keep peace and for their good behaviour for a period of three years under the Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on oral as well as documentary evidence, which do not appear illegal, arbitrary and no grounds are set out to interfere with the said findings.
35. In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. R & P, if any, be remitted back to the trial Court.
36. The Secretary of Legal Aid Sub Committee, shall quantify legal Fees of the appointed counsel as per Rules and shall pay at the earliest.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE J. )
JPChavan
Page 20 of 20