Bombay High Court
Neeraj Annasaheb Salunke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
1 16crirevappln19.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
16 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2021
WITH
APPLN/309/2021 IN REVN/19/2021
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 422 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2021
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 423 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 309 OF 2021
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2021
NEERAJ ANNASAHEB SALUNKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Bhosle Abhaysinh K.
APP for Respondent -State : Shri A.A. Jagatkar
...
CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2021.
PER COURT :
1. Heard Shri Bhosle, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Jagatkar, learned AGP for the respondent-State.
2. Applications to assist to learned AGP by Shri Dhorde, are
allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 21:36:13 :::
2 16crirevappln19.21
3. The allegations against the applicant are that he had held
hand of the victim with an intention to outrage her modesty.
4. Shri Bhosle, learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant and the victim were in love with each other. He
further submitted that even if prosecution case is admitted that he had
held her hand, it goes to show that it was in a friendly manner and not
with an intention to outrage her modesty. He further submitted that
the witnesses are on cross terms with the applicant. These three
witnesses, who are also the professors in the same college, had
deposed against the applicant in a departmental inquiry initiated
against the applicant. He submitted that there is delay of 24 hours in
lodging the FIR. He further submitted that the evidence on record
clearly indicates that the informant had consulted these three
professors and thereafter she lodged the report in the Police Station.
He further submitted that these three professors had accompanied her
to the Police Station. He argued that all these circumstances clearly
indicate that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this offence.
The applicant and the victim had made departmental complaints
against each other and the management had reprimanded both. He
argued that this clearly shows that the relations between the applicant
and the victim were strained. In order to wreak vengeance this false
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 21:36:13 :::
3 16crirevappln19.21
complaint has been filed against the applicant.
5. On perusal of the judgment of First Appellate Court and the
trial Court, it is evident that both the Courts have held that the
applicant had held the hand of the informant.
6. From the submission of the learned counsel for the
applicant, it is clear that their relations were strained. Having
considered the entire evidence on record it is evident that the applicant
had held the hand of the informant with an intention to outrage her
modesty.
7. Learned counsel Shri Bhosle, for the applicant submitted
that this act of the applicant does not fall within the scope of Section
351 (assault) of the IPC and under Section 350 (force) of the IPC. This
submission cannot be accepted because the definition of assault shows
that 'any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be
likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to
apprehend that person making gesture or preparation is about to use
criminal force to that person'.
8. In the instant case, the applicant had first wrongfully
restrained her and then he held her hand. This clearly shows that he
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 21:36:13 :::
4 16crirevappln19.21
had assaulted the applicant and had used criminal force on her.
9. In this view of the matter there is no substance in the
revision.
10. Shri Bhosle, learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that sentence which the applicant has undergone is sufficient
punishment.
11. He further submitted that having regard to the nature of
the act, the sentence of 15 days which the applicant had undergone is
sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. This submission
cannot be accepted because the applicant is a Professor. The victim is
also a Professor. It is not expected of him to behave with his colleague
in such a manner. Moreover, learned trial Court has already taken
lenient view by sentencing the applicant for two months simple
imprisonment.
12. In this view of the matter, nothing has been brought on
record to show that both the Courts have committed any grave error in
recording the conviction of the applicant. I am, therefore, not inclined
to entertain the revision. Hence the following order is passed :
::: Uploaded on - 17/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2021 21:36:13 :::
5 16crirevappln19.21
ORDER
1. Revision is dismissed.
2. All the pending criminal applications are
disposed of.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR )
JUDGE
mahajansb/
