Ku. Viveka D/O Mangalsingh ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3786 Bom

                                                                                                                                            apeal102-16
                                                                                  1




                                                                                                                                            
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                        
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 OF 2016




                                                                                                       
    Ku. Viveka d/o Mangalsingh Dhurvey, 
    aged about 37 years, Occu. Service, 
    r/o C.A.D. Camp Pulgaon,Wardha....                                                                               ...                      Appellant.

                                                ..Versus..




                                                                                 
    1.  State of Maharashtra                        
        through Police Station Officer, 
        Pulgaon, District Wardha. 
                                                   
    2.  Dattatrayas/o Ajabrao Patole,
        aged about  52 years, Occu. Service,
        r/o Jawahar Colony, Pulgaon, 
          


        Tahsil Deoli,District Wardha. ...                                                                            ...     Respondents.
       



    .......................................................................................................................................................

Mr. N.H. Khandewale, advocate for appellant. Mrs. Ketki Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1.

.......................................................................................................................................................

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATED : 13 th JULY, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

This appeal is by original complainant questioning the legality

and validity of the judgment and order dated 16 th February, 2016 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Spl. (Atro) Case No. 14/2013 against

the respondent no. 2 acquitting him of the offences punishable under sections

.....2/-

apeal102-16

354, 294, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xi) of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The facts as are necessary for deciding the present appeal are as

under:

The accused and the present appellant were working at the same

place in the finance section of C.A.D. Camp, Pulgaon in the capacity of clerks.

A complaint came to be lodged on 26.12.2012 alleging that she was working

in the said department from 16.2.2012 along with accused. Apart from the

above two persons, Rajorkar and Khandatkar were also serving in the same

room as clerks along with other ten to twelve persons. It is then claimed that

while working in the office on December 24, 2012 at about 3.30 p.m. the

accused came to the complainant, shown some papers to her and then

touched the complainant with an ill-intention resulting into registration of

crime in question. It is also alleged that the accused uttered the insulting

words based on the caste of the complainant at a public place resulting into

registration of the crime.

3. Upon investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the

accused for an offence punishable under sections 354, 294, 506 and 509 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

.....3/-

apeal102-16

4. Pursuant to the charge-sheet filed, the charge came to be framed

against the accused and in support of the claim the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 Ku. Viveka at Exh. 10, P.W.2 the Investigating Officer i.e. SDPO Mr.

Jitendra Jadhao at Exh. 17 and closed the evidence. The statement of the

accused thereafter was recorded under section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. In support of the prosecution case, the complainant had filed

written notes of arguments at Exh.33.

5. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the

material on record has declared the accused acquitted of the offences charged

with vide judgment and order dated 16 th February, 2016. As such, present

appeal.

6. Heard Shri Khandewale, the learned counsel for the appellant

victim. He would submits that, the cumulative effect of the overall evidence,

particularly based on the testimony of the victim Viveka the acquittal as

order is liable to be quashed and set aside. He would then submit that the

Investigation Officer SDPO Mr. Jadhav has also supported the prosecution

version and the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to order conviction of

the accused. Apart from above, he would then submit that looking to the

social angle of the matter i.e. the fact that the appellant victim is working in a

government office where there has to be protection at working place, this

.....4/-

apeal102-16

court should show indulgence in the matter by reversing the acquittal.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the case of

the complainant and has assisted this court in analyzing the evidence.

8. From the record it depicts that the complainant and accused were

working at the same place. It is then to be noted that the incident in question

is alleged to have taken place on 24th December, 2012 in the office premises

where the other employees namely Rajorkar and Khandatkar were present.

So far as the case of the complainant victim is concerned, none of the

witnesses including that of the co-employees working with the complainant

have supported the same. Rather none of the employees who were working at

the time of the incident in question are examined, perhaps in view of the fact

that they have not supported the case of the victim.

9. Apart from above, the scrutiny of the available evidence on

record does not depict of the confidence in the story of the prosecution

particularly when it is brought to the notice of this Court from the spot

panchanama Exh. 13 and other documents that the working of the victim and

accused at the place of the incident was under vigilance of a senior officer. It

is then to be noted that the incident as is claimed have taken place on 23 rd

December, 2012 which was reported on 26th December, 2012 to the police. It

is not in dispute that the complainant from 23 rd December till 26 th December

.....5/-

apeal102-16

was very much on duty and even if claimed to have narrated the incident to

her father still there is no explanation on record to justify the delay in lodging

the FIR which prima- facie smells of an afterthought attempt on the part of the

appellant-complainant to entangle the respondent-accused in the crime in

question. It is then to be noted that as observed here-in-above, the other co-

employees namely Rajorkar and Khandatkar have not supported the case of

the complainant. It is also brought on record that there are about other 20 to

25 members from the staff who were present in the office, however have not

supported the case of the complainant.

10. From the scrutiny and analysis of the available evidence, in my

opinion, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

10. As such, the acquittal as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge

vide judgment and order dated 16th February, 2016, in my opinion, does not

call for any interference as no case against the accused is made out. The

appeal, as such, fails and hence dismissed.

JUDGE Hirekhan

.....6/-

apeal102-16

CERTIFICATE

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : R.B. Hirekhan. Uploaded on : 18-07-2016.

P.A.

...../-