Bombay High Court
Shivaji Satwaji Bhagde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:15272
APPEAL-725-2023..odt
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.725 OF 2023
Shivaji Satavaji Bhagde,
since deceased through his LRS.,
1. Archana W/o. Shivaji Bhagade,
Age : 31 years, Occu. : Household,
2. Rajveer S/o. Shivaji Bhagade,
Age : 11 years,
Minor under guardian of His Mother,
3. Rajlaxmi D/o. Shivaji Bhagade,
Age : 12 years,
Minor under guardian of her Mother,
All R/o. Savargaon Bhagade,
Tq & Dist. Jalna. ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Taluka Jalna,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. Chaitanya S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 27 MARCH 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 10 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 26.06.2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2018 convicting present appellant for offence punishable under sections 224 and 353 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
APPEAL-725-2023..odt -2-
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has expired. By order of this Court dated 12.12.2025, the legal heirs have been brought on record, and the matter is now being prosecuted by them.
3. In short, case of prosecution in trial court is that, present appellant Shivaji and another accused Lahu Jadhav, who were in police custody, were being escorted from jail to Court by the police party. After they were produced, they were taken back in handcuffed condition towards the van. That time, they complained that handcuffs were excessively tight. When the Constable loosened it, that time both accused took to heels and ran away with the handcuffs. PW4 PHC Rathod chased them and finally managed to catch hold of them, but that time, they assaulted PW4 PHC Rathod. Therefore, PW4 PHC Rathod lodged report Exh.37. On the basis of which, crime was registered bearing No.86 of 2016 for offence punishable under sections 224, 333, 353 r/w 34 of IPC. After investigation, both were charge-sheeted and were tried by learned Sessions Judge to frame and explain the charge and conducted trial and by judgment and order dated 26.06.2023 convicted them for offence punishable under sections 224 and 353 r/w 34 of IPC and 332, respectively and sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment of one year for each of the offence.
APPEAL-725-2023..odt -3-
4. Feeling aggrieved by the same, instant appeal has been preferred.
SUBMISSIONS On behalf of Appellant:
5. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that, there was false implication. That, prosecution case was rested on in all 9 witnesses. That, almost all the witnesses are police witnesses. That, there were no independent witnesses. Thus, the entire case of prosecution was based on the evidence of interested witnesses. Moreover, none of the panchanamas were proved by the prosecution. That, there is variance in the evidence of police witnesses. According to learned counsel, essential ingredients for attracting the offence is patently missing. Lastly, learned counsel for appellant would point out that, as of today, the appellant convict has spent almost eleven months in prison, and therefore, there being no previous antecedents, he urges to release the accused on sentence already undergone.
On behalf of Respondent - State:
6. Learned APP opposed on the ground that conviction is recorded on fullfledged trial. That, there is account of informant, who was himself injured. There is also another eye witness account, who was also police personnel and therefore, learned trial court rightly APPEAL-725-2023..odt -4- recorded the guilt. However, learned APP submits that, it appears that, since the date of conviction, the appellant must have spent the period as stated by learned counsel for appellant.
7. Heard. Re-appreciated the evidence. Admittedly, there was charge for offence punishable under sections 224, 333, 353 r/w section 34 of IPC.
8. In short, case of prosecution is that, appellants who were in custody for commission of some crime, were produced before the Court, and after they were being taken back, on the pretext of handcuffs to be excessively tight, they got it loosened and thereafter they both managed to flee from police custody. Finally, it seems that chase was given and both were apprehended and on report of one police PW4 PHC Rathod, crime was registered for above offence and they were duly tried.
9. It appears that, evidence of PW4 PHC Rathod informant is crucial. He in his evidence at Exh.36, has stated that, on 03.03.2016, around 3.15 p.m., in the Court premises of Jalna Court, after the production of both accused Nos.1 and 2, a complaint of handcuffed to be tight was made and that constable namely Bohare made it loose. It is alleged that, thereafter both accused ran with the handcuffs. They were given chase upto Ambad Naka. He stated that, APPEAL-725-2023..odt -5- both accused had beaten one person proceeding on Activa vehicle and took his Activa, but they were caught and at that time, accused no.2 hit complainant with a stone near the ear. He brought accused no.2 to the police station and then lodged report Exh.37.
Though above witness is cross examined, there is no serious challenge to the above testimony.
10. PW6 Police Constable Bahure is another important witness and he is examined at Exh.55. He seems to be the eye witness for the prosecution and he also narrated about accused persons brought in police van for production and two accused persons after giving jerk, fled and therefore, he himself and Digambar Rathod gave a chase and they were caught, but accused Lahu assaulted Digambar on the ear and that Digamber lodged report.
11. Counsel for both the accused cross examined above witnesses, but there is no effective cross-examination.
12. PW5 Dr. Awachar and PW7 Dr. Bhiwte seem to be the Doctors and they testified at Exh.52 and 58, respectively and identified medical certificate (Exh.59).
PW8 Patil and PW9 Sanap are police officials.
APPEAL-725-2023..odt -6-
13. Appellant is convicted for offence punishable under sections 224 and 353 of IPC. In order to establish the above charge, it is incumbent upon prosecution to establish following essential ingredients :-
Section 224, IPC has two distinct parts. The first relates to resistance to apprehension and the second part relates to escape from custody. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused under first part, the prosecution is to prove the following ingredients:
1. that the accused was charged or convicted;
2. that he offered resistance or obstruction to his apprehension;
3. that such resistance or obstruction was illegal; and
4. that the accused offered such resistance or obstruction illegally.
When the offence charged is that of escape or attempt to escape from custody, the prosecution is to prove the following:
1. that the accused was taken into custody for commission of an offence;
2. that such detention in custody was lawful;
3. that the accused escaped from such custody or made an attempt to do so; and
4. that the accused did so intentionally.
APPEAL-725-2023..odt -7- The essential ingredients of the offence under section 354 of IPC are as under :
i. That the person assaulted must be a woman; ii. That, the accused must have used criminal force on her; and Iii. That the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending thereby to outrage her modesty.
14. Thus, on analyzing the above evidence, more particularly that of PW4 PHC Rathod and PW6 PC Bahure, prosecution has proved that both accused, who were in police custody, were produced in the court of Jalna and after remand, when they were being taken back, there was complaint of tight handcuffing and when it was loosened, they both gave jerk and fled. Police party managed to catch them at some distance. Allegations about causing injury to the complainant are substantiated by a medical expert. Therefore, prosecution indeed has proved the charges.
15. Submission before this court is that the maximum sentence is of one year, and the convict has already undergone almost 11 months, and therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be let off for the sentence already undergone.
In view of above submissions, the record is put to scrutiny, which reveals that the conviction was recorded on APPEAL-725-2023..odt -8- 26.06.2023, and admittedly this Court extended the benefit of suspension of sentence by order dated 31.08.2023. In the operative part of the judgment, it is mentioned that, the appellant was in jail from 28.09.2016 to 08.08.2017. Resultantly, convict has already suffered already almost 11 months of the sentence. Now, deceased is said to be no more as he has expired, consequently, appeal gets abated. Though appeal gets abated, conviction awarded by learned trial Court is maintained. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under sections 224 and 353 read with section 34 of IPC by learned Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 26.06.2023 in Sessions Case No.75 of 2018 is hereby maintained.
(ii) Appeal is disposed of as abated.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale