1 apeal168.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2006
Baban Mahadeo Garad,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o Rajura, Tq. Nandgaon Khd.
District Amravati. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., Nandgaon Khd.,
District Amravati. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
None for the appellant.
Shri N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 22
nd SEPTEMBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 24-11-2005 in Special Case 9/2000, delivered by the learned 2 nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Amravati, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") for offence punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2017 10:39:23 ::: 2 apeal168.06 Code and sentencing the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. The accused is, however, acquitted of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 25-10-1999 at 10-00 p.m. the accused trespassed in the house of the complainant Rekha Borkar (P.W.1) and outraged her modesty by holding her hands and embraced her. The prosecution has examined the complainant Rekha as P.W.1, the husband of the complainant Prabhakar as P.W.2 and the investigating officer Bhelave as P.W.6 amongst others to prove the charge.
3. The evidence of P.W.1 and her husband P.W.2 is consistent. The complainant has deposed that the accused entered her house, asked for a glass of water and then caught her hands and embraced her. P.W.1 has deposed that she shouted, her husband P.W.2 who was present in the house and was ill, came to her rescue and kicked the accused. P.W.1 further deposes that the accused uprooted the wooden pole of the shed and caused damage to the ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2017 10:39:23 ::: 3 apeal168.06 earthen pot and the wall. This aspect of the version of the complainant is corroborated by the spot panchanama which is proved by P.W.5 Ramesh. The evidence of the husband of the complainant P.W.2 is consistent with the evidence that of P.W.1. Nothing is brought on record in the evidence of either P.W.1 or P.W.2 to dent the case of the prosecution.
4. The evidence on record is more than sufficient to convict the accused of offence punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade has invited my attention to the fact that the accused has undergone at least five months of the sentence if not more. The accused was arrested on 01-11-1999 and the record reveals that at least till 03-04-2000 he was in judicial custody. The accused apparently was in custody even during the pendency of the appeal before this Court between 18-3-2006 to 13-4-2006. However, even if the later period is ignored the accused has already undergone five months of detention for offence committed in the year 1999. ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2017 10:39:23 :::
4 apeal168.06
6. In this view of the matter, while maintaining the conviction of the accused under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, I alter the sentence to detention/imprisonment already undergone. The sentence of fine is maintained. The bail bond of the accused shall stand discharged.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE adgokar ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2017 10:39:23 :::