Baban Mahadeo Garad vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Pso Amravati
2017 Latest Caselaw 7471 Bom

                                       1                                       apeal168.06




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 168 OF 2006


 Baban Mahadeo Garad, 
 Aged about 40 years, 
 R/o Rajura, Tq. Nandgaon Khd.
 District Amravati.                                            ....       APPELLANT


                     VERSUS


 The State of Maharashtra, 
 through P.S.O., Nandgaon Khd., 
 District Amravati.                                            ....       RESPONDENT


 ______________________________________________________________

                        None for the appellant.
            Shri N.B. Jawade, Addl.P.P. for the respondent.
  ______________________________________________________________

                              CORAM :  ROHIT B. DEO, J.

                            DATED    :    22
                                              nd  SEPTEMBER, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT : 

The challenge is to the judgment and order dated

24-11-2005 in Special Case 9/2000, delivered by the learned 2 nd

Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Amravati,

convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") for

offence punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal

2 apeal168.06

Code and sentencing the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

three months and six months respectively. The accused is, however,

acquitted of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 25-10-1999 at

10-00 p.m. the accused trespassed in the house of the complainant

Rekha Borkar (P.W.1) and outraged her modesty by holding her hands

and embraced her. The prosecution has examined the complainant

Rekha as P.W.1, the husband of the complainant Prabhakar as P.W.2

and the investigating officer Bhelave as P.W.6 amongst others to prove

the charge.

3. The evidence of P.W.1 and her husband P.W.2 is

consistent. The complainant has deposed that the accused entered her

house, asked for a glass of water and then caught her hands and

embraced her. P.W.1 has deposed that she shouted, her husband

P.W.2 who was present in the house and was ill, came to her rescue

and kicked the accused. P.W.1 further deposes that the accused

uprooted the wooden pole of the shed and caused damage to the

3 apeal168.06

earthen pot and the wall. This aspect of the version of the complainant

is corroborated by the spot panchanama which is proved by P.W.5

Ramesh. The evidence of the husband of the complainant P.W.2 is

consistent with the evidence that of P.W.1. Nothing is brought on

record in the evidence of either P.W.1 or P.W.2 to dent the case of the

prosecution.

4. The evidence on record is more than sufficient to convict

the accused of offence punishable under Sections 448 and 354 of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

N.B. Jawade has invited my attention to the fact that the accused has

undergone at least five months of the sentence if not more. The

accused was arrested on 01-11-1999 and the record reveals that at

least till 03-04-2000 he was in judicial custody. The accused

apparently was in custody even during the pendency of the appeal

before this Court between 18-3-2006 to 13-4-2006. However, even if

the later period is ignored the accused has already undergone five

months of detention for offence committed in the year 1999.

4 apeal168.06

6. In this view of the matter, while maintaining the

conviction of the accused under Sections 448 and 354 of the Indian

Penal Code, I alter the sentence to detention/imprisonment already

undergone. The sentence of fine is maintained. The bail bond of the

accused shall stand discharged.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

adgokar