Vithal Suryabhan Wakulkar vs State Of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Warora
2017 Latest Caselaw 2655 Bom

                                                                                1                                                                apeal657.03

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



                                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.657/2003


Vithal S/o Suryabhan Wakulkar, 
Aged about 28 Yrs., Occu. Cultivation, 
R/o Takli (Khapri), Tah. Warora, 
Distt. Chandrapur.                                                                                                                                               ..Appellant.
               ..Vs..
State of Maharashtra, 
through Police Station Officer, 
Police Station, Warora, 
Tah. Warora, Distt. Chandrapur.                                                                                                                      ..Respondent.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
               Ms. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     29.5.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for the respondent.

2. The appellant - accused has challenged the judgment passed by the

Sessions Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 354 of

the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for two months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine

to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

According to the prosecution, on 25 th November, 2000 at about 12

noon when the complainant Nutan had gone to the field of Vitthal Wakulkar

for collecting cotton, the accused fell her down and outraged her modesty. On

2 apeal657.03

complaint of the complainant, the investigation was undertaken and after

completing the necessary formalities, charge-sheet was submitted to the Court

of Judicial Magistrate, First Class for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)

(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and as the offence punishable

under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed charge,

explained it to the accused and as the accused had not accepted the guilt, the

trial was conducted. After conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Court recorded

that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed the

offence under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the Sessions Court has

recorded that the prosecution has proved that the accused has used criminal

force on the complainant - Nutan with intention to outrage her modesty and

committed the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code

and convicted and sentenced him.

3. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. I have examined the record

and have gone through the impugned judgment.

4. The complainant - Nutan has deposed that the accused tried to

3 apeal657.03

outrage her modesty when she had gone to the field of the accused for

collecting cotton as labour. In cross-examination, complainant - Nutan has

admitted that there is some dispute between the accused and the father of the

complainant regarding right of way to go to the field. The complainant -

Nutan has admitted in the cross-examination that her father had obstructed the

wife of accused from going over the bund and a case is going on. Considering

the above facts, the story put forth by the complainant - Nutan is unbelievable

and unacceptable. When there is some dispute between the accused and the

father of the complainant, it is difficult to accept that the accused will employ

complainant - Nutan to pick cotton from his field. There is no eye witness of

the incident. Considering the background, the conviction solely on the basis of

testimony of complainant without there being any corroborating evidence is

unjustified. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the

accused of the charge punishable under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. I find that the

prosecution has not been able to establish beyond doubt the guilt of the

accused and, therefore, his conviction for the offence punishable under Section

354 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.

5. Hence, the following order:

(i)          The impugned judgment is set aside.

(ii)         The conviction of the appellant - accused for the offence punishable



                                                 4                                                                apeal657.03

under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.

(iii) The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.

(iv) The appellant - accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v)                    The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

                                                     
                                                                                 JUDGE        




Tambaskar.