Bombay High Court
Rameshwar S/O Amrut Dhande vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso ... on 8 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn244.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.244/2006
Rameshwar s/o Amrut Dhande,
aged 23 years, Occ. Labourer,
r/o Mouza Mahuli, Tq. Parseoni,
Dist. Nagpur. (In Jail) .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, P.s. Parseoni,
Dist. Nagpur. ...NON APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 08.08.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. R. M. Daga, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. M. J. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the State. The
applicant was convicted by the 8th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge,
Nagpur on 17.11.2005 for the offence punishable under Section
341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. For his conviction under
Section 341 of the IPC, he was directed to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. Insofar as
conviction for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is
concerned, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 00:42:33 :::
2 revn244.06.odt
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month.
2. An appeal which was carried by the applicant before
the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide Criminal Appeal No.
137/2005 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on
14.06.2006. Hence, this revision.
3. The applicant faced a charge for the offence punishable
under Sections 341 and 354 of the IPC and also for the offence
under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the
applicant was acquitted of the said offence by the trial Judge itself.
No appeal was carried by the State against the said acquittal.
4. The FIR Exh.-12 is filed by the prosecutrix (PW2) on
12.09.2004 in respect of the incident that had happened on
11.09.2004. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently
submitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR. The
submission in that behalf has to be considered in the light of the
evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 00:42:33 :::
3 revn244.06.odt
5. The incident occurred when the victim was returning to
her house. That time when the prosecutrix was on her way, the
applicant had accosted her and caught her hand and demanded
sexual favour from her. It was denied and she tried to give a jerk
to the hands of the applicant and in that she received the injury on
her nostrils. As per the report and as per the version, Dashrath
(PW5) heard the shouts of the prosecutrix and he came there.
Thereafter the applicant ran away from the spot leaving behind his
bicycle. When the prosecutrix came to the house along with
Dashrath, husband of the prosecutrix; Kailash (PW4) was not
present. In the evening, her husband came and she has narrated
the incident to him. Thereafter the report was lodged.
6. The printed FIR is at Exh.-21. It shows that police
station is about 18 km. away from the village wherein the
prosecutrix and her husband were residing. In that view of the
matter, the explanation given by the prosecutrix and her husband
is plausible one and therefore I reject the submission of the
learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the late reporting
of the crime to the police, false implication at the hands of the
prosecutrix cannot be ruled out.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 00:42:33 :::
4 revn244.06.odt
7. The version of the prosecutrix as stated in the FIR that
she received injury on her nostrils is well supported by the
evidence of Dr. Zakiashirin Khan (PW1) who has conducted
medical examination of the prosecutrix when she was sent for
medical examination under requisition Exh.-22. The certificate
issued by Dr. Zakiashirin is at Exh.-10 and it shows that there was
an abrasion on the nostril of the prosecutrix. This version of the
prosecutrix is corroborated by Dashrath, the eye witness who was
examined in that behalf.
8. After perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that
both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence
brought on record. No perversity is found in appreciation or
evaluation of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
9. In that view of the matter, I concur with the findings
recorded by both the Courts below. The applicant is guilty of
committing the offence under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC.
10. Insofar as the sentence part is concerned, the applicant
is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2017 00:42:33 :::
5 revn244.06.odt
offence under Section 341 of the IPC whereas he is sentenced to
suffer six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable
under Section 354 of the IPC.
11. The judgment of the appellate Court was delivered on
14.06.2006. After dismissal of the appeal, the applicant was taken
into custody immediately and under the warrant of the Sessions
Court at the very same moment, he was sent to the Central Prison,
Nagpur as could be gathered from the record, especially page no.
35 of the "B" file.
The applicant has approached this Court on 19.09.2006
and this Court released the applicant on bail on 22.09.2006. Thus
from 14.06.2006 till the order was passed by this Court on
22.09.2006, the applicant was in jail for more than three months.
The incident is of dated 11.09.2004. The applicant has
already undergone more than half the sentence which was
imposed upon him. In that view of the matter, sympathetic view
can be taken. Hence, following order is passed.
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Revision No.244/2006 is partly
allowed.
6 revn244.06.odt
(ii) The judgment and order of conviction
dated 17.11.2005 in Special Criminal Case No.
25/2004 passed by 8th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions
Judge, Nagpur and confirmed on 14.06.2006 in
Criminal Appeal No.137/2005 by Sessions Judge,
Nagpur, stands confirmed. However, the substantive
jail sentence imposed upon the applicant is reduced.
The applicant is directed to undergo the imprisonment
for the period for which he has already undergone the
sentence in this crime.
JUDGE
kahale
