Hemlata Ramrao Jadhav vs Nagnath Gangayya Aralkar & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1154 Bom

                                                                            33.03crrevn
                                           -1-




                                                                             
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                     
                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2003

     Hemlata d/o Ramrao Jadhav,
     Age: 33 years, Occu: Household,
     R/o. C/o. Chandabai Kale Dadarao Plot




                                                    
     Near Shivaji Nagar, Parbhani,
     Tq. & Dist. Parbhani                            ...Applicant

              versus




                                         
     1.       Nagnath s/o Gangayya Aralkar,
              Age: 52 years, Occu: Service,
                             
              R/o Vivek Nagar, Parbhani,
              Tq. & Dist. Parbhani

     2.       The State of Maharashtra               ...Respondents
                            
                                           .....
     None for the applicant
     Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No. 1
     Ms. R. P. Gaur, A.P.P. for respondent No. 2
      


                                           .....
   



                                              CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 2nd APRIL, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

This is part heard matter. When the matter is called out

for hearing, none appears for the applicant.

2. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the

respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2, this Court

proceeded to decide the revision application, which is against the

33.03crrevn

judgment of acquittal, delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani

acquitting respondent No.1 of the offence punishable under Sections

376, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on 09/10/2002.

3. Heard at length the learned Counsel for respondent No.1

and learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2.

4. It appears that present respondent No. 1 was charged

with the offence punishable under Sections 376, 384 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story that on 10/07/2000 the

complaint came to be lodged by the victim claiming that in 1991 she

was serving as teacher in the school of which respondent No.1 was

Secretary. Respondent No.1, in 1993, represented her that she will

be appointed as teacher and financially and socially exploited her.

The complaint was lodged at Exhibit-18. After it was reduced into

writing, the offence came to be registered against respondent No.1

for the offence punishable under Section 376, 384 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the

charge was framed against the accused at Exhibit-6 and having

pleaded not guilty, trial was set in motion.

33.03crrevn

6. PW-1 Hemlata Ramrao Jadhav deposed in support of

the complaint. She narrated as regards conduct of the accused of

demanding money and sexual flavour in exchange of promise of

employment to her. Learned Sessions Court noted that the said

witness/complainant was unable to disclose details of place/lodge in

which she had been with the accused at Pune. The Sessions Court

then proceeded to consider the victim being an educated lady, it was

expected of her to narrate various details.

7. The Sessions Court then noted that there was

substantial delay in lodging the F.I.R. which was also not explained. It

was also noted by learned Sessions Court that, the victim though

paid Rs.80,000/- to the accused, but the source thereof was also not

established. Exhibit-20, compromise in between the complainant

and accused is taken on record for the purpose of inferring that the

amount as was claimed was not paid. In support of the prosecution

story, PW-2 Ramprasad Dabhade was examined. However, it

appears that said Ramprasad Dabhade has not supported the story

of victim in its entirety. There are certain important omissions as

regards payment of money and narration of incident.

8. Learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence in its

entirety, evaluated the same and has given verdict of acquittal.

33.03crrevn

9. Having gone through the same, in my opinion, having

regard to the scope of revision in the matter of acquittal, no case for

interference is made out. The revision application lacks merit, fails

and stands dismissed.

Sd/-

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

Tupe/02.04.16