Chandrakant Anant Bhoir (Abated As Per Cts Order Dated 28/10/2026) And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010011652002
DINESH
SADANAND
SHERLA
910-j-apeal-633-02.odt
Digitally signed by
DINESH
SADANAND
SHERLA
Date: 2026.11.06
17:11:29 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2002
1. Chandrakant A. Bhoir ...(Abated)
2. Pandurang B. Meher
3. Gajanan R. Meher
4. Hareshwar P. Meher
5. Anant V. Bhoir ...(Abated)
6. Ramchandra K. Meher ...(Abated)
7. Bhalchandra A. Bhoir
8. Hanumant A. Meher
9. Jagdish R. Meher
10. Chandrakant P. Meher
11. Vijay M. Meher
12. Vasudev H. Mhatre. …Appellants.
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Shantaram A. Meher
3. Prakash A. Meher ...Respondents.
…………..
Mr. Shirish Gupte ,Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Nilesh Kumbhar i/by.
Ms Kalyani K. Pradhan for the Appellants.
Mr. Mayur Sonawane, APP for the Respondent/State.
…………..
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 03.11.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
07.05.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Palghar in Sessions Case No. 714 of 1996.
2. In the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellants were tried for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325,
452, 336, 337, 504, and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Dinesh S. Sherla 1/4
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:14:49
910-j-apeal-633-02.odt
Penal Code (IPC).
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has convicted the present appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 325, 452, and
337 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer
punishment ranging from 2 months to 3 years.
4. Appellant Nos. 1, 5, and 6 have expired during the pendency
of the present appeal.
5. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant
Nos. 2 to 4 and 7 to 12 and the learned APP for the respondent-
State.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that
the trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. It is submitted that
according to the prosecution there was dispute between two
groups in the village as both the groups were claiming that they
have right to light the Holi bonfire. It is submitted that on account
of said dispute the present appellants alleged to have assaulted
the injured. It is submitted that the incident is dated 23.3.1994. It
is submitted that, as on today, most of the appellants are more
than 60 years of age. In support of the said submission, the
learned senior counsel for the appellants has produced on record
the photocopies of the Aadhaar cards of the appellants. The same
Dinesh S. Sherla 2/4
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:14:49
910-j-apeal-633-02.odt
are taken on record and collectively marked 'X' for the purpose of
identification.
7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further submits
that during the trial, appellant No.1 was in jail from 25.03.1994 to
18.04.1994 and the other appellants were in jail from 18.04.1994
to 27.04.1994. It is submitted that the appellants are not involved
in any other crime. It is submitted that the appellants do not wish
to challenge the impugned judgment and order on merit, however,
considering the overall facts and circumstances, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the trial Court be modified and reduced
it to the period of sentence already undergone by the present
appellants, and the fine amount be enhanced.
8. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-State
submits that there are in all four injured. It is submitted that
considering the said fact, the sentence imposed by the trial Court
may not be modified or reduced.
9. I have perused the evidence on record. There was no
personal enmity between the parties. As on today, most of the
appellants are more than 60 years of age. The incident is of the
year 1994. The fact that the appellants are not involved in any
other crime is not disputed. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the following order is passed:
Dinesh S. Sherla 3/4
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:14:49
910-j-apeal-633-02.odt
O R D E R
a] The Appeal qua appellant Nos.1, 5 and 6 is dismissed
as abated.
b] The Appeal qua appellant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7 to 12 is
partly allowed.
c] The impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2002
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in
Sessions Case No.714 of 1996 convicting the appellant
Nos.2,3,4 and 7 to 12 for the offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 324, 325, 452, and 337 read with Section
149 of the IPC is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is modified and
reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
them.
d] Appellant Nos.2,3,4 and 7 to 12 shall pay an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to injured Smt. Kusum
Shantaram Meher and Smt. Damayanti Prakash Meher in
equal proportion, within a period of four weeks.
12. List the matter under the caption “for compliance” on
2.12.2026.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
Dinesh S. Sherla 4/4
Uploaded on - 06/11/2026 Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 17:14:49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)