Bombay High Court
Suresh Suryakant Balkrishna vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 March, 2021
Bench: S. K. Shinde
Shambhavi
N. Shivgan 26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
Digitally signed by
Shambhavi N.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Shivgan
Date: 2021.03.16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
11:18:36 +0530
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.534 OF 1998
Suresh alias Suryakant Balkrishna
Jagadale, age 28 years, resident of
Tadavale (Sammat), Taluka: Koregaon,
District: Satara ... Appellant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra
(To be served through the learned
Public Prosecutor High Court
Bombay) ... Respondent
...
Ms. Simantini Mohite, Appointed Advocate for the
Appellant.
Mr. S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 9th MARCH, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the conviction for the ofence
punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentence of simple imprisonment
for six months passed in Sessions Case No.178 of 1996 by
Shivgan 1/7
26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, accused therein
has fled this Appeal.
2 Briefy stated prosecution case is, on 5th
September, 1996, accused held victim's hand with intent to
outrage her modesty while she had gone out, to answer
nature's call. The alleged incident had taken place at 7.30
a.m. at and behind the primary school at Village: Tadavale,
Taluka: Koregaon, District: Satara. She reported the incident
to her mother-in-law. At the material time, her husband,
being driver, had gone on duty. Her husband returned
home, in the evening and after consulting him, she went to
police station with, Prakash Kamble and Ramchandra
Kamble and lodged the report. Whereupon the ofence
under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC & ST Act' for short) was
registered. After the investigation, fnal report was fled
after which charge was framed.
Shivgan 2/7
26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
3 Prosecution in support of the charge, had
examined Shashikant Gaikwad (Panch Witness) P.W.1, Anita
Ramesh Kamble (Complainant) P.W.2, Tarabai Kamble
(mother-in-law of the victim) P.W.3, and Investigating Ofcer
(P.W.5). Upon appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial
Court acquitted the accused of the ofence punishable
under the SC & ST Act but convicted him of the ofence
under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him as stated
above.
4 Against the conviction and sentence, this appeal
is preferred.
5 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6 The learned counsel for the appellant has taken
Shivgan 3/7
26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
me through the testimony of witnesses and would contend
that there are major contradictions on material aspects in
the testimonies and would further submit that, in view of
irreconcilable versions of witnesses, appellant is entitled to
beneft of doubt. In support of the submission, she has
invited my attention to a complaint fled by mother-in-law
of the appellant on 5th September, 1996 against father-in-
law of the victim. The learned counsel would rely on this
complaint and submit that complaint was lodged at 11 a.m.
on 5th September, 1996 of which, note was taken.
Submission is, that dispute subsisting between the family of
the victim and of the appellant motivated to lodge the false
complaint in retaliation to complaint fled by mother-in-law
of the appellant. The learned counsel submits that the
complaint was fled nearly after 12 hours and there is no
credible or possible reason for such delay in lodging the FIR.
The learned counsel would, also rely on evidence of panch
witness to contend that the alleged spot of the incident
being abutting the busy village road, the likelihood of the
Shivgan 4/7
26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
alleged incident, was unlikely. It is submitted that false
complaint has been lodged by the victim to counter the
complaint lodged against the father-in-law of complainant
by Janakibai Gajanan Kurle (mother-in-law of the appellant).
On these grounds, the learned counsel seeks acquittal of
the appellant.
7 Per contra, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor supports the impugned conviction and sentence.
8 Though the alleged incident had occurred in the
morning at 7 a.m., report was lodged nearly after 12 hours.
Victim in her testimony, stated that at the material time,
her husband was not at home, but only after consulting
him, report was lodged. Her evidence shows, she had gone
to police station with Prakash Kamble and another
Ramchandra Kamble. Her testimony is silent, about her
husband's presence in Police Station, while lodging the
complaint. Infact, testimony of her mother-in-law suggest,
Shivgan 5/7
26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
husband of victim did not return home on that day.
Therefore, complainant's evidence, belies the explanation
for not lodging the complaint, soon after the incident.
Evidence of victim indicates that, Prakash Kamble and
Ramchandra Kamble had accompanied her to the Police
Station. Even so, her evidence does not point to when the
alleged incident was disclosed to these two persons,
obviously since these two persons, accompanied her, it is to
be inferred that they knew the incident. Nevertheless,
prosecution did not examine these two persons. Nor the
evidence indicates, why these two persons did not take
steps to lodge the complaint. In the light of the evidence
on record, reasonably it can be inferred that, either
prosecution has not placed correct facts before the Court,
or a false case has been fled, to counter the complaint fled
by appellants' mother-in-law against victims' father-in-law.
Thus, beneft of doubt is to be extended to the accused.
9 As a result, the impugned conviction and
Shivgan 6/7
26-APEAL-534-1998.odt
sentence is quashed and set aside. Appeal is allowed. Bail
bond executed by the appellant is cancelled. Sureties are
discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid be refunded to the
appellant.
10 Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 7/7
