Bombay High Court
Shri Suresh @ Dursing Jahagrya ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 27 November, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
Shri Suresh @ Dursing Jahagraya Pawara,
Age 31 years, Occ. Agriculture Labour,
R/o. Kauthal,
Tal. & Dist. Dhule.
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra.
(2. Balabai Sagar Pawara,
Age Major, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Bhortek, Tal.Shirpur,
Dist. Dhule. )
(Appeal dismissed against R.No.2
as per Court order dt.14.10.2016)
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Shrikant S.Patil, Advocate for appellant.
Shri R.B.Bagul, APP for respondent State.
...
CORAM: P.R. BORA, J.
***
Date of reserving the judgment:21/9/2017
Date of pronouncing the judgment: 27/11/2017
***
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2017 01:56:32 :::
2 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal
against the judgment and order passed in Sessions case
No.111/2014 decided by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge at Dhule on 24th of June, 2015.
2. The appellant was prosecuted by Police Station,
Songir, taluka and district Dhule, for the offenses
punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal
Code and vide the impugned judgment and order has been
convicted by the Sessions Court for both the aforesaid
offenses. The learned Sessions Court has sentenced the
appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years
and a fine of Rs.3,000/-; in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months for the offense punishable
under Section 376 of IPC whereas, for the offense under
Section 506 (II) of IPC the appellant has been sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Both the
sentences are directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved
thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:
That, on 9th of April, 2014, when prosecutrix was in
her house in the field situated at village Tamaswadi with
her children, namely, Pooja, aged about two years, and
Vikram, aged about three months, at about 8 p.m., the
appellant ( hereinafter referred to as the accused), entered
in her house and told her that her husband will be coming
late in the night and he has asked him to take along with
him the prosecutrix and her children at his house, to stay
there for a night. The prosecutrix though was reluctant
to go along with the accused, since he insisted and gave
the reference of the husband of the prosecutrix, she
became ready to go along with the accused. While she
and her children were going along with the accused, after
having walked some distance, the accused dragged the
prosecutrix in standing crop of maize in one field and
committed forcible intercourse with her. Accused had
threatened prosecutrix not to shout or raise alarm or else
he would kill her and her two children. The accused had
also gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix so that she shall
not shout. After having intercourse with the prosecutrix,
4 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
the accused fled from the spot. The prosecutrix then,
along with her children, reached home and when her
husband returned from Dhule, she narrated the entire
incident to him.
4. On the next day of the alleged incident, the
prosecutrix went to Police Station, Songir, along with her
husband and employer of her husband and lodged the
report of the alleged incident. On the report so lodged by
the prosecutrix, the offence was registered against the
accused under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and the
investigation was set in motion. The accused was
arrested and while in Police custody, discovered the
clothes on his person. The investigating officer then
carried out usual formalities of preparing spot panchnama,
etc. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.
The statements of all necessary witnesses were examined
by the investigating officer. The blood, and semen
samples, collected of the prosecutrix, as well as of the
accused, were forwarded for chemical analysis and the
reports were obtained. After completing the
investigation, chargesheet was filed and the case was
5 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after
having considered the oral and documentary evidence
brought on record by the prosecution, held the accused
guilty for the offenses punishable under Section 376(1)
and 506 of IPC and sentenced the accused with the
imprisonment as noted hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby,
the appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. Shri S.S.Patil, learned Counsel appearing for
the accused, assailed the impugned judgment on several
grounds. Learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court
has failed in not appreciating that the FIR of the alleged
incident was lodged after about 24 hours. Learned
Counsel submitted that the delay which has occurred in
lodging the report has not at all been explained by the
prosecution. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
unexplained delay in filing the FIR raises serious doubts
about genuineness of the complaint lodged by the
prosecutrix. The learned Counsel further submitted that
in the medical examination of the prosecutrix, no injury
6 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
has been noticed on her person. Learned Counsel
submitted that when it was the case of the prosecutrix that
she resisted the sexual assault on her by the accused, it
appears improbable that no injury was caused to the
prosecutrix. Learned Counsel submitted that though the
vaginal swab, etc. were also collected of the prosecutrix,
nothing incriminating was revealed through the Chemical
Analyzer's report. No semen was detected in the vaginal
swab of the prosecutrix. The learned Counsel submitted
that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving that the
prosecutrix was subjected for any forcible intercourse.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecutrix
does not know any other language than Pawara but, while
recording her statement, no interpreter was called so as to
correctly translate the narration of the prosecutrix in
Marathi. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
learned Sessiosn Judge has ignored the vital admissions
given by the prosecution witnesses and more particularly
by the prosecutrix herself. The learned Counsel further
submitted that the trial Court has failed in appreciating
that the prosecutrix candidly admitted in her cross
examination that the contents of the FIR were stated by
7 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
one Shri Borse, the employer of her husband. The
learned Counsel further submitted that though the
prosecution evidence is wholly insufficient, and shrouded
with doubts, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
erroneously held the accused guilty for the offenses
alleged against him. The learned Counsel, therefore,
prayed for setting aside the order of conviction and to
acquit the accused of the charges levelled against him.
7. Learned A.P.P. Shri R.B. Bagul, opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Learned
A.P.P. supported the impugned judgment and order. He
submitted that by examining 11 witnesses, the prosecution
has beyond any reasonable doubt proved the guilt of the
accused. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the delay
has been reasonably explained by the prosecution. The
learned A.P.P. further submitted that in the medical
examination of the accused, after his arrest, several
injuries were noticed on the person of the accused.
Learned A.P.P. submitted that the injuries noticed on the
person of the accused lead to an inference that the
prosecutrix had resisted the sexual intercourse by the
8 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
accused. Learned A.P.P. submitted that in absence of
any cogent explanation given by the accused as about the
injuries noticed on his person, it has to be held that the
injuries noticed on the person of the accused were caused
to him during the alleged accident. Learned Counsel
submitted that the prosecutrix understands the Marathi
language. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the
testimony of the prosecutrix fully inspires confidence.
Learned A.P.P. submitted that the learned Sessions Court
has passed a well reasoned order and no interference is
required in the order so passed. Consequently, he
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. The law is well settled that in the case of a
rape, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is found
trustworthy, believable and is free from reasonable doubts,
the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole
testimony of the prosecutrix and the Court shall not seek
any further corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix
in such matters.
9. In the instant matter, the learned Additional
9 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
Sessions Judge has held the testimony of the prosecutrix
to be dependable and the conviction of the accused is
mainly based on her evidence though the learned trial
Court has also relied upon the evidence of PW 8 Sagar i.e.
husband of the prosecutrix, the evidence in the form of
recovery of clothes on person of the accused in pursuance
of his memorandum and the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Ajit
Patil, who had examined the accused after his arrest and
had noticed certain injuries on his person. It was the case
of the prosecution that said injuries were caused to the
accused during the course of his alleged intercourse with
the prosecutrix and the contention so raised has been
accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
10. After having perused the entire evidence on
record, it is, however, difficult to agree with the findings
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. First,
it has to be ascertained whether the evidence of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence and can be believed to be
true so as to confirm the conviction of the accused as
ordered by the trial Court.
10 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
11. The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged on
10th of April, 2014. The alleged incident is stated to
have happened on 9th of April, 2014. As is revealing
from the contents of the FIR, on 9.4.2014, in between 8
p.m. to 8.30 p.m. the accused went to the house of the
prosecutrix situated in the agricultural field belonging to
one Raju Borse at village Tamaswadi and told the
prosecutrix that her husband may come home late in the
night from Dhule and he has, therefore, asked the accused
to take the proxecutrix with him at his house. Though the
prosecutrix initially refused to go along with the accused,
when the accused insisted, believing that her husband
might have really told the accused to take the prosecutrix
at his house, the prosecutrix along with her daughter aged
about two years and her son, aged about three months,
agreed to go along with the accused.
12. When the accused and the prosecutrix along
with her children were so proceeding, the accused,
dragged the prosecutrix in one field wherein there was a
standing crop of maize and the prosecutrix opposed the
accused and also raised shouts but the accused gagged
11 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
her mouth, and threatened her that if she does not allow
him to have sexual intercourse with her, he will kill her as
well as her two children. Thereafter, the accused made
the prosecutrix lie down in the said maize field, and had
forcible sexual intercourse with her. At the relevant time,
the daughter of the prosecutrix was made to sit nearby
and the accused had snatched the son of the prosecutrix
from her and had thrown him nearby in the said field itself.
After having intercourse with the prosecutrix, the accused
fled from the said spot and the prosecutrix with great
difficulty returned to her house with her children.
13. At about 10 p.m., the husband of the
prosecutrix returned to home along with his employer,
namely, Raju Borse, as well as the tractor driver, namely,
Bhila Master. The prosecutrix disclosed the alleged
incident to them. They all were enraged. The husband of
prosecutrix, his employer Raju Borse and tractor driver
Bhila Master then jointly proceeded in search of the
accused towards his field. The accused, however, was not
found at his house. On the next day also the husband of
the prosecutrix searched for the accused, however, he
12 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
could not be traced out. Thereafter, the prosecutrix, her
husband and his employer Raju Borse went to Police
Station, Songir and lodged report of the alleged incident.
14. In light of the facts appearing in the F.I.R.,
when I perused the evidence of the prosecutrix before the
Court, it is apparently noticed that she did not state many
material facts stated in the F.I.R. Her testimony before
the Court nowhere reveals that when she proceeded along
with the accused, her daughter and the son were with her.
The prosecutrix also did not state that the accused
snatched her son from her and threw him in the field
before having sexual intercourse with her. In her
testimony before the Court, the prosecutrix also did not
state that the accused threatened her that if she did not
allow him to have sexual intercourse with her, he would
kill her and her children. What she has deposed is the fact
that accused threatened her that he will kill her if she
refuses for intercourse with him. The prosecutrix has then
testified that after having intercourse with her, the
accused reached her back to her house, and ran away
thereafter.
13 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
15. In the FIR it was specifically alleged by the
prosecutrix that when she proceeded with the accused on
his insistence, towards his house, her daughter was held
by the accused and the son was with her. It was further
averred in the said report that after the accused dragged
her in the standing maize crop, he snatched her son from
her and threw him in the said field and made her daughter
to sit in the said field nearby. It was also alleged by the
prosecutrix that, when she started shouting in protest, the
accused threatened her that if she refuses to have
intercourse with him, he would kill her and her children
there itself. In the FIR it was further stated by the
prosecutrix that after having intercourse with her, the
accused fled from there and, thereafter, with great
difficulty, she along with her children reached to her
house.
16. It is difficult to accept that the prosecutrix
would have forgotten the aforesaid facts while deposing
before the Court. The facts which have been omitted by
the prosecutrix cannot be said to be insignificant or
14 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
immaterial. Had the children be really with the prosecutrix, it
is improbable that she would forget to state the said fact in her
testimony before the Court. It also cannot be accepted that
the prosecutrix would have forgotten to depose before the
Court that her son was snatched from her by the accused
before committing sexual intercourse with her and further that
the said child was thrown in the field and that the daughter was
asked to sit nearby. As has come on record, the son of the
prosecutrix at the relevant time was aged about only three
months and the daughter was aged about two years. Having
regard to the ages of her children, there is no possibility that
the prosecutrix would have gone along with the accused leaving
them alone at the house. Further, had it been the fact as
mentioned in the First Information report that after committing
rape on the prosecutrix, the accused fled away from there and
the prosecutrix, with great difficulty returned home along with
her children, in no case it would have been deposed by the
prosecutrix in her testimony before the Court that after having
sexual intercourse with her, the accused reached her at her
house. Similarly, had it been the fact as mentioned in the FIR
that at about 10 p.m. on that day, the husband of the
prosecutrix returned to home and to reach him at his home, his
employer Raju Borse and the tractor driver Bhila Master had
15 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
been to her house and that the prosecutrix disclosed the
alleged incident to all of them, the prosecutrix would not have
forgotten to depose the said fact in her testimony before the
Court. More importantly, it was also the contention of the
prosecutrix in her report that, after she disclosed that the
accused committed rape on her, her husband, the employer of
her husband and one Bhila Master had become furious and
immediately proceeded in search of the accused towards the
field wherein he was residing. However, he was not found
there. The aforesaid fact has also not been deposed by the
prosecutrix in her testimony before the Court. This was also
an important fact since it contains an information that she
disclosed the alleged misdeed of the accused to her husband
who was at that time accompanied with his employer and one
more person and that they all became furious and immediately
proceeded in search of the accused towards his field. It also
appears improbable that such an important fact would be
missed by the prosecutrix while giving her evidence before the
Court.
17. In view of the above, serious doubts are created
about the prosecution case and in such circumstances, it would
be very unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the
16 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
prosecutrix to hold the accused guilty of the offence charged
against him.
18. Further, there is absolutely no explanation as to
why the prosecutrix and her husband did not immediately
approach the nearest Police Station and lodge the report
against the accused. In fact, the incident was so serious that
the report of it must have been lodged by the prosecutrix and
her husband without any loss of time. As has come on record,
on the date of the incident, his employer had been to his
house to reach the husband of the prosecutrix on motor cycle.
It has also come on record that the prosecutrix disclosed the
alleged incident not only to her husband but also to his
employer and to one more person, namely, Bhila Master, who
was also with them. In the circumstances, in fact, it was not
impossible for the prosecutrix or for her husband to approach
the nearest Police Station immediately and to lodge the report
of the alleged incident. Even if it is assumed that the husband
of the prosecutrix and his employer were first intending to find
out the accused and were searching for him, the report could
have been lodged in the morning of 10 th of April. However, the
report came to be lodged on 10 th of April,2014, at 23.35 hours
i.e. in the late night. The report was thus lodged admittedly
17 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
after 24 hours of the occurrence of the alleged incident. The
prosecution has not brought on record any circumstance to
justify the delay so caused in filing the report by the
prosecutrix. In the instant case there is no scope for taking a
plea that there were no means to to reach to the nearest Police
Station in view of the fact that when the prosecutrix disclosed
the alleged incident to her husband, his employer was also
present there who is an agriculturist as well as a trader.
Further, as has come on record, the said employer himself took
the husband of the prosecutrix with him on his motor cycle to
find out the accused. It is also the matter of record that when
the prosecutrix went to Police Station, Songir for lodging the
report the employer of her husband was accompanying them.
It was, thus, quite possible to immediately lodge the report on
the same day or in any case on the next day morning. There
is absolutely no explanation as to why the report was not
lodged till late night of the second day. The delay occurred in
lodging the FIR raises doubts about the genuineness of the
prosecution case.
19. After lodging of the report the prosecutrix was
immediately referred for her medical examination. She was
examined by Dr.Arun Narayan Ambalkar (PW 1) who was
18 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
attached to Shri Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College,
Dhule, as Assistant Professor. In the medical examination of
the prosecutrix no external injury was found anywhere on her
body. When it is the case of the prosecution that the
prosecutrix opposed and resisted the accused for having sexual
intercourse with her, it appears improbable that no injury was
found anywhere on her body. As is revealing from the material
on record, some injuries were noticed on the person of the
accused. According to the discussion made by the learned
trial Court since the accused did not provide any explanation for
such injuries on his person, an inference was liable to be drawn
that the said injuries were caused to him in the alleged incident
of forcible rape committed by him on the prosecutrix. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge has observed that injuries as were
caused to the accused were liable to be caused in the case of
forcible intercourse. The observation made and the conclusion
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wholly
erroneous. If this is to be accepted that in an attempt of
resisting the accused from committing sexual intercourse, the
prosecutrix had caused the said injuries to the accused, it is
difficult to accept that no injury, not even a minor abrasion,
was caused to the prosecutrix.
19 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
20. As noted hereinabove, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has presumed that the prosecutrix resisted the
accused from committing sexual intercourse with her. As has
been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the
injury on the face of the accused was liable to be caused by the
prosecutrix. As per the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the
prosecutrix has scratched the face of the accused and the
injuries noticed on face of the accused were indicating the said
fact. The observation so made by the learned Sessions Judge
is without any evidence on record. On the contrary, the
evidence on record falsifies any such presumption. The
material on record shows that at the time of medical
examination of the prosecutrix, sample of her blood, vaginal
swab as well as her nail clippings were obtained and seized and
were forwarded for their chemical analysis. The report of the
Chemical Analyzer ( Exh.19) demonstrates that neither blood
nor tissue matter was detected in the nail clippings of the
prosecutrix. Had it been the fact that the prosecutrix had
scratched the face of the accused, and the injuries noticed on
the face of the accused were result of the said act of the
prosecutrix, in her nail clippings the blood and the tissue matter
must have been detected. Absence of blood or tissue matter
in the nail clippings rules out the possibility of prosecutrix
20 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
causing any injury on the face of the accused.
21. It is also the matter of record that no semen was
detected in the pubic hairs collected of the prosecutrix or in the
vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. As has been deposed by PW
1 Dr. Arun Ambalkar, since after the alleged incident, the
prosecutrix had taken bath and had washed her body, no
semen was likely to be detected in the sample of pubic hair or
in the vaginal swab. Though it is true that merely because no
semen was detected in the vaginal swab or on pubic hair, no
such conclusion can be drawn that the prosecutrix was not
subjected for forcible sexual intercourse, reasonable doubts are
certainly created about the case of the prosecution. Moreover,
as I stated earlier, in such circumstances, the testimony of the
prosecutrix must inspire full confidence. In the present case,
as has been elaborately discussed by me hereinabove, the
evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire such confidence.
22. As I noted earlier, the injuries noticed on the person
of the accused had much weighed in the mind of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in holding that the said injuries
support the case of the prosecution that the accused committed
sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The learned Additional
21 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
Sessions Judge has further observed that the defense raised by
the accused as about the said injuries on his person is
unacceptable. It appears to me that the entire discussion
made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is irrelevant and
against the settled legal principles. First, it has to be kept in
mind that the failure on the part of the accused to prove his
defense cannot be a ground for holding him guilty for the
offense charged against him unless the prosecution has
undoubtedly proved his guilt by leading cogent and sufficient
evidence on record. In the instant case, as I discussed
hereinbefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire
confidence. The facts as are appearing in the FIR are not
corroborated by the prosecutrix in her testimony before the
Court. The entire case of the prosecution appears improbable.
The delay in lodging the FIR has also not been properly
explained. Absence of any external injury on the person of the
prosecutrix is also one of the cause which raises reasonable
doubt about the prosecution case.
23. It was sought to be canvassed by the learned A.P.P.
that the injuries on the person of the accused which have not
been properly explained by the accused, indicate the guilt of
the accused. The argument so made by the learned A.P.P. is
22 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
liable to be rejected at the threshold. If it is accepted that the
prosecutrix while resisting the accused from committing sexual
intercourse with her, caused the injuries to the accused on his
face, on his cheek, etc., it is quite improbable and unacceptable
that no injury would be caused on any part of the body of the
prosecutrix. Moreover, Dr. Patil (PW ) who had examined
the accused, did not state in his testimony before the Court that
the injuries as were noticed on the person of the accused were
liable to be caused in an attempt by him to commit forcible
sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In his examination in
chief, nothing has been asked to Dr. Patil as about the probable
cause of such injuries on the person of the accused. As
against it, the accused has brought on record the probable
cause for the injuries caused to him. More importantly, it is
not the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix scratched
the face of the accused or caused any such injuries as were
noticed on the person of the accused. I have elaborately
discussed hereinbefore the evidence of the prosecutrix. In her
testimony before the Court she has not even whispered that
she scratched the face of the accused. As noted earlier,
neither blood nor any tissue matter was detected in the nail
clippings of the prosecutrix. The prosecution has, thus, utterly
failed in bringing on record any evidence to show that the
23 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
injuries as were noticed on the person of the accused were
caused to him at the time of his alleged forcible sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix. As such, in fact, there was no
burden on the accused to explain how the injuries noticed on
his person were caused to him. Moreover, plausible
explanation has been given by the accused for such injuries
appearing on his person. There seems no reason to disbelieve
the version of the accused.
24. After having considered the entire evidence on
record, I find it difficult to agree with the findings recorded by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution has
failed in bringing on record any conclusive evidence to prove
the guilt of the accused. The testimony of the prosecutrix is
not free from doubts. It would be very unsafe to base the
conviction of the accused merely on the basis of the evidence of
the prosecutrix. The entire case of the prosecution is
shrouded with doubts. Lastly, it was sought to be canvassed
by Shri Bagul that the accused has not brought on record any
reason as to why the prosecutrix would indulge in falsely
implicating the accused in such a heinous crime. According to
the learned A.P.P., in absence of any such circumstance
brought on record, it has to be presumed that the allegations
24 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
made by the prosecutrix are true. The submission so made by
the learned A.P.P. is liable to be turned down for many reasons.
Firstly, it is incorrect that the accused has not brought on
record any circumstance. As has come on record, Raju Borse,
the employer of the husband of the prosecutrix, was desiring
that the accused shall work with him and some amount was
also therefore, given to the accused but he refused to work for
said Raju Borse. Apart from the said fact, the submission so
made is against the settled principles of law. The initial burden
is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Merely because the accused failed in bringing on
record any circumstance to show that there was any reason for
the prosecutrix to falsely implicate him in the alleged crime, the
guilt of the accused cannot be said to have been proved. The
prosecution has to stand on its own legs. In the instant
matter, I reiterate that the prosecution has failed in bringing on
record any such evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution evidence is not
free from doubt, benefit of which would certainly go to the
accused.
25. In the foregoing circumstances, the judgment and
order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Hence,
25 CRI.APPEAL NO.562 OF 2015
the following order:
ORDER
1. The judgment and order passed in Sessions Case
No. 111/2014, dated 24th of June, 2015, by the Additional
Sessions Judge at Dhule is quashed and set aside.
2. The appellant accused is acquitted of all the charges
levelled against him. He be released forthwith, if not required
in any case or crime.
3. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused be
refunded to him.
4. Criminal Appeal (No.562/2015) stands allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/562-15cr.appeal
