Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar S/O Anandrao ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Narkhed ... on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 36.revn.84.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.84 OF 2022
Dnyaneshwar Anandrao Balpande
Vs.
State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station Narkhed,
District Nagpur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. K. Bezalwar, Advocate for applicant.
Ms. T. Udeshi, APP for non-applicant/State.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 07/04/2022
Heard Mr. Bezalwar, learned counsel for the
applicant and Ms. Udeshi, learned APP for non-applicant/
State.
2. The present application challenges the
concurrent findings rendered by the Court below
regarding the guilt of the applicant, under Section 354-B
of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the applicant to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default, two months simple imprisonment,
which has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court
by the judgment dated 19.03.2022.
3. Mr. Bezalwar, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated, there is delay in lodging the FIR; there is no
(2) 36.revn.84.2022
injury suffered by the victim; the victim stated that the
bangles worn by her were of the same colour and design,
as against which, the bangles which have seized at the
spot, are different in clolour and design; the clothes were
produced by the victim herself in the Police Station; all
the witnesses were in some manner related to the victim,
therefore, they were interested witnesses.
4. Ms. Udeshi, learned APP for
non-applicant/State opposes the application, and submits
that there was no delay whatsoever in as much as, the
incident had taken place at around 12.00 noon and the
FIR was lodged at about 3.00 p.m.; considering the
nature of the incident, the absence of injury was
immaterial; the production of the clothes by the victim as
well as the difference in the bangles, according to her,
were also immaterial and what is material, is the
evidence of the victim which remains unshaken.
5. At the outset, it is material to note that the
scope of interference in a revision is limited to the extent
of finding a perversity in the concurrent findings
rendered by the Courts below and the Revisional Court
does not sit as a Court of appeal.
6. A perusal of the judgment of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class would indicate that the
factum of delay, has been considered by the learned trial
(3) 36.revn.84.2022
Court in para 31 of its judgment, where he has noted the
reasons for the delay in as much as after the incident
which had taken place in the agricultural field, at about
12.00 noon, the victim had run towards the Agra road,
where she saw a couple passing on the motorcycle
(PW 6- Ravindra Ramrao Urkude and PW 7-
Sau. Madhuri Ravindra Urkude), who were stopped by
her and who had reached her at the shop of Umesh
Umathe PW 3, from where she caught a bus to her native
village and upon narrating the incident to her husband,
complaint came to be lodged on the same day at about
3.00 p.m. This position had also been considered by the
learned Appellate Court in para 39 of its judgment and so
also the statement of PW 3, regarding the timing has also
been explained, considering the evidence of PW 3 Umesh
Umathe, who says that he was not sure about the timing.
7. In so far as the contention that there was no
injury to the victim, the nature of the incident, as
narrated in the FIR, would not make it necessary for her
to have an injury, and mere absence of injury does not
rule out the incident altogether. In so far as the alleged
discrepancy claimed between the colour of the bangles,
the incident had happened in an agricultural field, and
considering the area of the agricultural field, the seizure
of different type of bangle, would not be a factor which
would detract from the veracity of the crime. The further
contention that the blouse was produced by the victim,
(4) 36.revn.84.2022
on the contrary leads credence to the testimony of the
victim.
8. Even if, the entire testimony of all the other
witnesses is ignored and the evidence of the prosecutrix
only is considered, her evidence (at Exh.20)(page 81)
would indicate that she has still supported the happening
of the incident. The subsequent actions, of running
towards Agra road and finding a couple passing on a
motorcycle who had reached her to the shop of Umesh
Umathe PW 3 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW
Nos.3, 7 and 8. The evidence of the prosecutrix, PW 5 as
produced on record would indicate that there is nothing
brought on record by way of cross-examination so as to
detract from what she has deposed in the chief,
considering which, I do not find any perversity in the
judgments of the Court below. The applicant, was bound
to protect the dignity of the victim and not to take undue
advantage of her being alone in the agricultural field,
considering which, I do not see any reason to interfere in
the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below.
9. At this stage, Mr. Bezalwar, learned counsel
for the applicant submits, that the applicant be given the
benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, as the
applicant, is not involved any of the offence of any of the
nature whatsoever.
(5) 36.revn.84.2022
10. Ms. Udeshi, learned APP for non - applicant
/State wants to address the Court on this aspect, list the
matter on 11.04.2022.
JUDGE
Sarkate
Digitally signed byANANT R
SARKATE
Signing Date:08.04.2022
17:28
