Bombay High Court
Anil S/O Deorao Pimpalkar (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S. ... on 8 July, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
1 judg.revn 106.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Criminal Revision Application No.106 of 2016
Anil Deorao Pimpalkar,
Aged about 33 years, Occ.-Agriculturist,
R/o.-Virur, Tahsil Korpana,
District Chandrapur. .... Appellant.
Versus
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Gadchandur. .... Respondent.
Shri Y.B. Mandpe, Adv for Appellant.
Shri A.V. Palshikar, APP for State.
Coram : S.B. Shukre, J.
th
Dated : 08 July, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the appellant
and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Paper book is waived as the
copies of depositions of the witnesses are filed on record.
2] On going through the judgment and order dated 17-06-2016
2 judg.revn 106.16.odt
rendered in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2009 by the learned Sessions
Judge, rejecting the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for
the revision applicant, I find that no illegality, impropriety or
incorrectness could be noticed therein. The learned Sessions Judge
has taken into account properly the evidence put forward by the
prosecutrix, PW-3, as against the appellant/applicant. It discloses
that the applicant had, in the evening of the relevant date, touched
the prosecutrix inappropriately and the manner in which he has
done it sufficiently indicates that he had intended to outrage her
modesty. There is nothing in her testimony to entertain any manner
of doubt about her credibility. Her subsequent conduct only assures
one that what she has deposed against the present applicant must
be true. PW-4 Bala, husband of the prosecutrix, has endorsed to
such subsequent conduct. There is nothing in his entire testimony
to enable him to disbelieve the same. No doubt, FIR has been
lodged on the subsequent date. But, the circumstances of the case
are as such that they explain the delay occurred in lodging the FIR
3 judg.revn 106.16.odt
in this case. Prosecutrix is a married lady and therefore if she had
weighed the pros and cons of the case to be filed against the
applicant which it appears she has done and which has consumed
some time, it has to be taken as natural reaction on her part thereby
explaining the delay in filing the FIR. There is also no material
brought on record by the applicant from which it could be said that
there is some reason for the prosecutrix to take a revenge against
the applicant by falsely implicating him in this case. The prosecutrix,
a married woman, would not resort to trick of making such
allegations as would reflect on her character. After all, the allegation
of outraging modesty of a woman when not proved, ordinarily goes
with the risk of bringing of slur on the image of a woman. So, the
prosecutrix or for that matter any woman worth the name, would not
like to take such a risk unless she is convinced that the shameful act
in relation to her has been done by the accused. Then, the
prosecutrix has immediately informed her husband, PW-4, of the
incident. So, this is not a case, where the victim kept everything
4 judg.revn 106.16.odt
secret, thought over future plan of action and then at leisure took a
step forward by lodging the FIR. Therefore, not much significance
can be attached to the belatedly filing of the FIR in this case. Upon
consideration of the overall evidence of the prosecution, I am of the
opinion that the only conclusion that is possible in this case is that
the prosecution has succeeded in proving it's case against the
applicant beyond reasonable doubt. On the counts of legality and
correctness of the impugned order, I thus find no reason to make
any interference with the impugned judgment and order.
3] The learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that
the applicant is working in a public sector undertaking and he is the
only bread earner in his family and so, leniency should be shown to
him. He also, on instructions, submits that the applicant is ready to
pay enhanced fine from out of which, the prosecutrix could be
compensated. The learned APP submits that an appropriate order
may be passed.
5 judg.revn 106.16.odt
4] Upon overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of
this case and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and
also having regard to the fact that neither of the Courts below
have considered the aspect of compensating the prosecutrix, I am
of the view that the sentence given to the revision applicant can be
reduced and the fine imposed upon the applicant could be
enhanced to provide compensation to the prosecutrix and this way,
the chief purposes and of sentencing policy i.e. reformation,
deterrence and retribution could be achieved.
5] In the result, the Revision Application is partly allowed and
the following order is passed :-
a] The judgment and order convicting the appellant
for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of
the Indian Penal Code are confirmed.
b] The sentences imposed for both these offences,
jointly and concurrently, are hereby modified and reduced
6 judg.revn 106.16.odt
to the period of detention already undergone by the
applicant from 17-06-2016 till the date of this order.
c] The fine imposed upon the applicant for both these
offences, which is of Rs. 2000/- each, is enhanced to
Rs.10,000/- each, totalling to Rs.20,000/-, to be deposited
in trial Court and upon depositing the same, the applicant
shall be released and set at liberty. From this amount, an
amount of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the prosecutrix as
a compensation. In case, enhanced fines are not
deposited, the applicant shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of one month, jointly
and concurrently, for both the said offences.
d] The trial Court shall take steps for payment of
compensation to the prosecutrix as directed by this
Court.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
