Bombay High Court
Ramesh S/O Tukaram Meharkure vs State Of ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
APEAL307.01.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.307 OF 2001.
APPELLANT: Ramesh s/o Tukaram Meharkure,
aged about 40 years, Occu: Labourer,
R/o Kharbi (Dighori), Tq.Nagpur,
Distt.Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra
ig through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Sakkardara, Nagpur,
Tq. and Distt.Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ms.Sunita Paul, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Anil K.Bangadkar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 13th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. By the present appeal, the appellant takes exception to
the judgment and order of conviction passed by the 5 th Ad-hoc
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, dated 3rd of September, 2001 in
Sessions Trial No.507 of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the
learned Judge of the Court below has convicted the appellant for
the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian
Penal Code. On account of his conviction under Section 354 of
the Indian Penal Code, he was directed to suffer rigorous
APEAL307.01.odt 2/5
imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 and in
default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further more period of
one month. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six months on account of his conviction under
Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for one month.
2. The appellant was charged by the learned Court below
after matter was being committed by the learned Magistrate to
the Session Court. Vide Exh.2, a Charge under Sections 376, 448
and 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the
appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for his
trial.
3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution
examined six witnesses and also relied upon various documents
duly proved in the course of the trial.
After appreciation of the prosecution case, the learned
Judge of the Court below acquitted the appellant of the offence
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also
under Section 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, however, found
APEAL307.01.odt 3/5
that the prosecution has proved the lesser offence against the
appellant and convicted for offence punishable under Section 354
of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Heard Ms.Sunita Paul, the learned counsel appointed
by the Legal Aid Committee to represent the appellant and Shri
A.K.Bangadkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State. With their able assistance we have also gone through
record and proceedings.
5. The victim has not lodged the report. The report is
lodged by her father PW 1 - Sewakram Billore. The First
Information Report is dated 6th of June, 1999 (Exh.8). The oral
report shows that the incident in question of alleged rape was
dated 31st of May, 1999. The printed FIR is at Exh.20. The
learned Judge of the court below has recorded a specific finding
that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the
prosecutrix. He also reached to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the ingredients of Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code.
6. The girl is examined as a prosecution witness no.2 in
APEAL307.01.odt 4/5
the trial. Her evidence shows the overact on the part of the
present appellant so as to connect him with the offence
punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. During
her cross-examination it is brought on record that initially
relations between families of prosecutrix and appellant were
good. However, she has denied that there was a quarrel in
between the appellant and the parents of the prosecutrix.
7. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 2 in
respect of incident by which it could be said that her modesty was
outraged by the appellant.
8. The next question is about the sentence. The
appellant was arrested on 8th of June, 1999 and he was released
on bail on 23rd of August, 1999. Thus, for the period of more
than two and half months the appellant was in jail. The incident
in question occurred in the year 1999. In my view pendency of
this appeal also must have its effect on the appellant. Thus,
taking overall view of the matter, it would be proper to pass
following order.
ORDER
(1) The appeal is partly allowed. Though judgment and
APEAL307.01.odt 5/5
order of conviction is maintained, the sentence is reduced for the
period which the appellant has already undergone in Jail.
The appellant is directed to pay a further fine of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) within a period of six
weeks from today. If further fine amount of Rs.5000/- is not
paid then in that event the original order of sentence shall stand
revived.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
The professional charges of the learned counsel for the
appellant, who was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee, shall
be Rs.3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only).
JUDGE.
chute
