Bombay High Court
Laxmi Mahadev Jadhavar vs Datta Sandipan Dhakane And Anr on 31 March, 2021
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/5 ALP 313-16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 313 OF 2016
Laxmi Mahadev Jadhavar .. Applicant
Versus
Datta Sandipan Dhakane & Anr .. Respondents
...
Mr. B.G. Tangsali for the applicant.
Mr.Y.Y. Dabake, APP for the State.
Ms.Vilasini Balasubramanian i/b Jaydeep Mane for respondent
no.1.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 31st MARCH 2021.
JUDGMENT :-
1 The scope of Appeal against acquittal under the Code
of Criminal Procedure is well demarcated. Unless there are
substantial and compelling reasons, the judgment of trial Court
cannot be overruled. The order of trial Court shall not be
interfered with because the presumption of innocence of accused
is further strengthened by his acquittal. When the trial Court
take a reasonable view of facts of the case, interference is not
justifiable unless there are really strong reasons to hold otherwise
and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal.
Tilak
2/5 ALP 313-16.doc
2 The law as regards interference by the Appellate
Court in an Appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled.
3 The present Appeal is instituted by the complainant
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25th July 2016 of the
Addl. Sessions Judge, Barshi in Sessions Case No.188 of 2014,
whereby the accused stands acquitted of the charges slapped
against him for the offence punishable under Section 324A of the
IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant is the
complainant who had lodged a complaint which resulted into the
accused being charge-sheeted.
As per the complainant, her two children
accompanied their grand-mother to the native place as a religious
function was scheduled. While they were returning back to
village Chumb, the accused was also returning on his motor-cycle.
The grand mother of the children asked the accused to carry them
on his motor bike and reach them to their house. One of the
child was a victim girl aged seven years. As per the complaint, the
accused stopped the motor bike near his field and made the boy
wait there, and on the pretext of getting drinking water for the
girl from the well in the field, took her away from the main road.
It is alleged that he brought her under a neem tree, removed his
undergarments as well as the under-wear worn by the victim and
Tilak
3/5 ALP 313-16.doc
slept over her body. It is also alleged that he kissed her and
thereby outraged her modesty.
4 The victim narrated the incident to the complainant
and on ascertaining the same from the mother-in-law, the
complaint was lodged on 6th May 2013 and the aforesaid sections
were invoked. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed and the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he was
tried for the offence with which he was charged.
5 The prosecution examined the complainant as well as
the victim girl as PW 1 and PW 2. The brother of the victim was
also examined along with the grandmother. Panch witness is
examined as PW 4 and the Investigating Officer, ASI of Pangri
Police Station was examined as a prosecution witness. The
Medical Officer of PHC, Pangra Shinde was examined as PW 6
who deposed that there was no external injury on the body of
victim and a medical certificate accordingly was issued. In the
statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the appellant
denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence.
6 With the assistance of the counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent and the learned APP, I
have perused the impugned judgment.
Tilak
4/5 ALP 313-16.doc
The prosecution story is found to be not reliable by
the learned Judge on two counts; firstly, being the spot
panchnama do not disclose any well in the field of the accused
and secondly, the medical evidence as regards any sort of sexual
assault is Nil. The Court did not believe the version of the child
witness and the reason cited is, the defence has brought on record
in evidence of PW 7 Sumitra, that she was trying for engagement
of Sheetal - her grand daughter with the accused. Though this is
denied by PW 7 and PW 1, but Vicky i.e. brother of the
victim(PW 3) has admitted this in cross-examination. On
consideration of the evidence on record, the case of the
prosecution is found suspicious and the benefit of doubt has been
granted to the accused.
7 The impugned judgment has appreciated the
evidence on record in minute detail and it is found that there is
discrepancy in the version of the witnesses on the aspect of
carrying the victim girl to the well, and the spot panchnama do
not reveal existence of such well in the field of the accused and
the reason for the victim girl being separated from the brother
and taken away from the highiway in the field, does not appear to
be plausible. The victim girl has categorically stated in her
deposition that there is no well in the field of the accused.
However, in her chief, she has stated that the accused gave her
Tilak
5/5 ALP 313-16.doc
water from the well to drink and thereafter had taken her under
the lemon tree where he molested her.
8 Further, the medical evidence in no way has
corroborate the prosecution case and in absence of any
independent witnesses being examined and the prosecution
witnesses being interested in prosecuting the accused and the
reason which has surfaced in the cross-examination of Vicky i.e.
PW 3, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the benefit granted in favour of the accused
by the Addl. District Judge vide the impugned judgment, cannot
be faulted with.
By applying the parameters of scope of interference in
an Appeal against acquittal, on appreciation of evidence resulting
in acquittal, the Appeal is not worth consideration and hence is
dismissed.
SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J
Tilak
