Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Suresh Mahadev Joshi on 26 February, 2021
Bench: K.R. Sriram
1/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.862 OF 2006
The State of Maharashtra )
(Through the Police Inspector, )
Palghar Police Station) ) ....Appellant/Complainant
V/s.
Suresh Mahadev Joshi )
Age : 63 years, R/at : Jivhala, )
Plot No.4, Lokmanya Pada Road, )
Middle Class Society, Near Iron High )
School, Palghar, Dist. - Thane ) .....Respondent/Accused
----
Mrs. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State - Appellant.
Mr. Sunil Kale for respondent.
----
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
DATE : 26th FEBRUARY 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated
10th May 2006 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar,
acquitting respondent (accused) of offences punishable under Section 3 (1)
(x) (intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ) and
Section 3 (1) (xii) (being in a position to dominate the will of a woman
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position
to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed ) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
(SC/ST Act) and Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with
intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal
Gauri Gaekwad
2/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2 It is prosecution's case that complainant Ashalata Amrut Jadhav
(PW-1), to whom notice has been issued but has chosen not to remain
present, a Hindu Warli adivasi by caste, was residing at Dahanu and was
working as a Clerk in Sonopant Dandekar College, Palghar since 18 th May
1994. PW-1 had separated from her husband. One Dr. Arun Madhukar
Padhye (PW-2) was the Principal of the said College. Accused was the
Secretary of the College with the Librarian Ashok Thakur. Complainant was
in the Minimum Competency Vocational Course department and her work
included completing admission formalities of students, fill up the
examination forms, typing the question papers, issuing leaving certificate,
preparing salary sheets etc. A part of her work included taking signatures on
cheques and accused alongwith the Librarian Ashok Thakur (PW-4) were the
authorised signatories. Apart from taking the signature of accused on
cheques or vouchers, PW-1 had no cause to interact with accused. It is
prosecution's case that after accused was elected as Secretary of the
institution, the practice of sending peons to get signature on cheques was
stopped because accused insisted that complainant should go to his office
and take his signature and not send a peon. It seems accused regularly went
over to the place where complainant was sitting without any work and
would harass her and tried to talk to her. Complainant told accused not to
come in her office without any reason and it was also brought to the notice
of the Principal. Still there was no change. It is also alleged that when peon
Gauri Gaekwad
3/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
was sent to obtain the signature, accused will refuse to sign and send the
peon back with the direction that complainant should personally come and
take his signature. This was only to harass complainant and misbehave with
her. It is also alleged that while taking the cheque or returning the cheque,
accused would touch her hand. It is also alleged that accused once held her
hand forcibly and made her sit on his chair. This was informed to the
Principal, Board of Directors etc. but PW-1 was advised to keep quiet or else
would be removed from service.
3 Sometime in Diwali holidays in the year 2000 when complainant
came to the College and went to the ladies room at about 10.30 a.m.,
accused entered the room and when he saw PW-1 was sitting alone, he went
out. Once when complainant was wearing a punjabi dress, accused made
vulgar gesture and by calling PW-1 by her first name said " आशालता तू आदि वासी
आहे . फार दि कणी दि सते . पाठमोरी खूप छान दिसते दि सते . बघत राहावे से वाटते . तु झे दिन दिसतेतंब गोल गरगरीत
छान दिसते दि सतात, मला बघायला खूप आवडतात. तू साडी मध्ये आणखीन दिसते उठू न दिसते दि सते " . Complainant
reported the incident to Principal. On another occasion when accused saw
complainant alone he said "तू आदि वासी जाती ी असून दिसतेही तू आदि वासी वाटत न दिसतेाही, अग तू
आदि वासी समाजा ी वाटत न दिसतेाहीस त्याप्रमाणे वागत न दिसतेाही ". In July 2001, when accused
found complainant alone in the office, he even demanded physical
relationship with him which she refused and informed the Principal and
others. On 3rd October 2001 at about 4.30 p.m., when complainant had gone
to the office of accused for work and after the work was over when she was
leaving, accused embraced her from behind and said " तू पाठमोरी छान दिसते दि सते स ".
Gauri Gaekwad
4/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
Complainant got scared and she went and complained to the Principal and
others. Various such instances happened and as there was no change in the
conduct of accused, complainant even wrote two letters dated 4 th October
2001 and 4th November 2001 for permission to lodge police complaint. As no
cognizance was taken on those two letters, complainant wrote a reminder on
1st January 2002 to the Principal. Instead of taking action against accused,
the President of the institution and others persuaded complainant to let go
and told her that if she persisted, she may even lose her job. Later when one
more incident happened, place of work of complainant was changed to
another building where also accused came and harassed her.
4 As the harassment continued, by a complaint dated
15th September 2003, complainant informed the Schedule Caste Cell in
Mumbai University with copy to the Women Cell in Mumbai University and
narrated the harassment that she had gone through at the hands of accused
and that the management was doing nothing to stop the accused. Mumbai
University sent those letters to Palghar Police Station and based on that,
complainant went to Palghar Police Station, gave proof of her caste as adivasi
and after considering the same, an offence came to be registered for charges
as mentioned above. Her statement was recorded and the statements of
witnesses were also recorded. After completion of investigation,
chargesheeet was filed and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried. Defence of accused was of total denial and false
implications. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, passed the
Gauri Gaekwad
5/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
order of acquittal as noted above and the same is impugned in this appeal. It
is also the case of accused that there were irregularities found in the work of
complainant including cash book and bank passbooks which were not
tallying and when that was pointed out by the Auditor and accused,
complainant has filed this false complaint to cover up the irregularities in her
work. It seems accused had asked complainant why she was asking him to
sign cheque for two teachers who were not even fixed or whose names did
not appear in the muster roll, which annoyed complainant. Defence states
that this complaint has been filed to defame and lower the esteem of accused
in the society.
5 To drive home the charge, prosecution led evidence of
7 witnesses, viz., Ashalata Jadhav, complainant as PW-1; Dr. Arun Madhukar
Padhye, Principal of Institution as PW-2; Mahadev Kanolkar, Office
Superintendent as PW-3; Ashok Ramchandra Thakur, another Secretary as
PW-4; Shivrajbhai Tiwari, President of Managing Committee as PW-5; Madan
Rathod, Investigating Officer as PW-6; and Anand Ramchandra Jadhav,
Staff/Lecturer as PW-7.
6 Out of 7 witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5 turned hostile. Evidence of
PW-3 also is inconsequential because PW-3 has no first hand knowledge and
his testimony states that he came to know about the misbehaviour of accused
towards complainant from newspaper report. In his cross examination, PW-3
says he does not remember which was the local newspaper which had
Gauri Gaekwad
6/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
reported the incident that he had read.
7 Before I proceed further, from the complaint and from the
evidence, it is quite obvious that no case is made out to intentionally insult
or intimidate complainant with intent to humiliate her in any place within
public view. Complainant has said that when all the incidents of harassment
happened, there were no eye witnesses. Therefore, charge under Section 3
(1) (x) has to fail. The next is charge under Section 3 (1) (xii), which is
worded as under :
"3(1) (xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman
belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that
position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have
otherwise agreed".
Under this provision (a) accused must be in a position to
dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, (b) uses that position to exploit her sexually and
(c) complainant would not have, but for the dominant position of accused,
agreed to be exploited. This would have to be read as a situation where
because of the dominant position of the accused, complainant would have
agreed to be sexually exploited. From the evidence before this Court and the
charges framed, it is not the case of prosecution that complainant agreed to
be sexually exploited. The whole charge proceeds on the basis that accused
harassed complainant and indulged in the acts alleged against her will and
she had never agreed to be sexually exploited. Therefore, the charge under
Section 3 (1) (xii) has to fail. Perhaps on the facts and circumstances of the
Gauri Gaekwad
7/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
case the appropriate Section would have been Section 3 (1) (xi) which says
"assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty".
As no charge under Section 3 (1) (xi) was framed, we need not
go into that aspect any further. Moreover, the stage we are at today and
considering the incident happened almost 20 years ago, the question of
modifying the charge also will not arise.
8 What remains is the charge under Section 354 of the IPC which
reads as under :
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage
her modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any
woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.
9 Now let us examine whether prosecution has been able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the charge. The evidence of PW-1 complainant
itself is found with so many contradictions and variations that it does not
enthuce confidence. In her testimony, PW-1 says that she informed about
certain incidents to the Principal. The Trial Court has highlighted various
incidents of contradictions and omissions but I would, for the sake of brevity,
highlight only few of them. PW-1 says that in the office where she sits, one
Registrar, account office Superintendent, three ladies clerks, three junior
clerks and five peons were also working. PW-1 also says the place where
accused used to sit, there used to be three tables and 15 to 20 chairs and
Gauri Gaekwad
8/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
Ashok Thakur (PW-4) also used to sit with accused. PW-1 also admits that
there was no separate cabin for accused and whenever the President or
Treasurer would come to the College, they all would sit in the same room
where accused would sit. PW-1 also says that in the same place where
accused used to sit was also the Library and there were big windows to the
said room over looking parking lot where staff and teachers would park their
two wheeler. PW-1 states that there were 50 incidents of harassment but
there were no eye witnesses. PW-1 also agrees that the cheques and vouchers
could have been signed either by accused or PW-4 but has no explanation as
to why she continued to go to accused for signature when she could have
gone to PW-4 for signature if she was being harassed. PW-1 also admits that
she had purchased a chair for Rs.2,000/- for herself without approval and
when she sent the cheque book with the peon for signature, accused refused
to sign the cheque because PW-1 had purchased the chair without approval.
PW-1 also admits that she was asked by the President of the Institution and
Joint Secretary (PW-4) as to why she had not prepared the balance-sheet for
the year 2002-2003 and she was also issued a letter (Exhibit 28) in which
the auditor had raised objection for the difference in bank accounts and
College account for the year 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. PW-1
also admits that the letter indicated that bank passbook and cash book that
she used to maintain did not tally and those audit objections were received
in evidence as Exhibit 29. PW-1 says in her cross examination that 50 times
whenever she went to accused for taking signature on cheques, accused
Gauri Gaekwad
9/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
would hold her hand and made her sit. PW-1 could not tell the date, month
or year of 50 incidents but admits that those 50 incidents occurred in the
management office. PW-1 then says nobody was present during those
50 incidents to witness those incidents. Strangely, PW-1 says she did not raise
her voice against accused or inform about 50 incidents to ladies and staff but
informed the Principal 50 times. PW-1 also says that she did not raise her
voice when the comments as mentioned above in Marathi were made and
when those comments were made, nobody was present. PW-1, however, later
states that she informed about the incidents to one Shaila Urade and Swati
Patil, who have not been examined and do not even figure in the list of
witnesses. In the testimony, PW-1 says in July 2001 accused asked her to
have physical relationship because his wife was ill but admits that it is not
referred to in her complaint to the Police. PW-1 admits that her complaint is
silent about her making a grievance to PW-4 that accused demanded sexual
relationship. After stating that nobody has ever witnessed any of the
50 incidents, PW-1 states that on one occasion after accused signed the
cheque when PW-1 turned to go back to her office, accused suddenly caught
hold of her from behind. PW-1 says she did not shout for any help and
nobody was an eye witness. At the same time, PW-1 says it happened in the
middle of the office and when accused was holding her, she saw people
around the said office but did not shout to attract the attention of those
people. PW-1 says she narrated the incident to the people around who were
present but PW-1 does not know the name of those persons and none of
Gauri Gaekwad
10/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
those persons even went to ask accused about the incident. PW-1 then says
she informed on the same day of the incident to PW-2 and PW-4 but admits
that in the letters dated 4th October 2001 and 4th November 2001, which
were addressed to the University, she has not mentioned about these
incidents. PW-1 says she did not even enquire with the management as to
what happened to her complaints. PW-1 also states that all the ladies
working in the institution, after she lodged the complaint, have stopped
talking to her and all staff of the College have been boycotting her. But the
last nail on the prosecution's case is complainant (PW-1) admits that she has
made similar complaint against others also.
10 PW-2 agrees that complainant had informed him about
misbehaviour of accused but only two or three times and not 50 times. PW-4,
in his testimony, says that when PW-2 and himself called PW-1 to ask her
about the allegations that she had made, PW-1 said that due to emotional
feeling she made the said complaint and she was withdrawing the same.
PW-4 also mentions about accused informing about the lapses in the work of
complainant and when complainant was asked about those lapses, she
replied due to health problems she was unable to complete her work. PW-5,
who was the President of the Managing Committee, says that when a
meeting was convened to enquire, complainant did not turn up and accused
denied any incident. PW-5 also says that there were lapses on the part of
complainant while purchasing articles and the Managing Committee had
replied to the University and mentioned that it was not brought to the notice
Gauri Gaekwad
11/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
of the Committee about any harassment, mental or sexual to PW-1. PW-5
also admits that they had informed the University that complainant was not
punctual in attending the office work and she was found roaming in the
College here and there and not found in her seat. PW-5 also denies about any
complaint by complainant about accused commenting on her caste. PW-5
also says that complainant was never working under the supervision of
accused. PW-6, Investigating Officer, says that he made investigation taking
into consideration the complaint lodged with the College authority as well as
Mumbai University and no incidents, as mentioned in the complaint, were
appearing therein. PW-7, who was also a Lecturer in the College, says he had
no personal knowledge about any incident and complainant never told him
that accused had commented on her caste.
11 Considering these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court
acquitted accused. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P.1 has
culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while
hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said
judgment read as under :
72. The following principles emerge from the cases above :
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against
acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the
appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It
can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and
law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The
accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial
1. (2008) 10 SCC 450
Gauri Gaekwad
12/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is
innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the
trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness'
credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a
different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and
compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.
73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts
should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of
judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the
trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling
reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would
have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial
court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist
when :
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably
wrong;
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage
of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material
evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts
must rule in favour of the accused.
12 The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar
& Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka2 has held that unless, the conclusions
2. (2014) 5 SCC 730
Gauri Gaekwad
13/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on
erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they
are likely to result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere
with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely
because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the
evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment
of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is
a possible view.
We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of
innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by
the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court.
The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat 3
has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the
order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds
the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its
own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was
nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the
Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own
conclusions.
13 I have, with the assistance of the learned APP Mrs. Malhotra,
considered the evidence and the impugned judgment. I do not find anything
3. 1996 SCC (cri) 972
Gauri Gaekwad
14/14 5.Apeal-862-2006.doc
palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable in the
impugned judgment. From the evidence available on record, there is nothing
to substantiate the charge leveled against the accused.
14 There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption
in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to
accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and
strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court
observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
15 In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court
cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of
acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. I cannot find any fault with
the judgment of the Trial Court.
16 Appeal dismissed.
Digitally signed (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
by Gauri A.
Gaekwad
Gauri A. Date:
Gaekwad 2021.03.04
14:43:47
+0530
Gauri Gaekwad
