Bombay High Court
Shahaji Mugutrao Gharge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 26 August, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/4 06-APEAL-167-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.167 OF 2020
Shahaji Mugutrao Gharge .... Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Ameya C. Sawant i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad, Advocate for
Appellant.
• Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for the State/Respondent.
• Mr. Sunil V. Ghadge, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 17.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an Appeal against acquittal filed u/s 372 of
Cr.P.C. by the victim, the original first informant. The
Respondent Nos.2 to 17 were the original accused in Special
POCSO Case No.15 of 2016. They are acquitted from the
charges of commission of offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 149,
452, 354-A, 323, 506 of IPC vide judgment and order dated
24/10/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaduj in
Special Case No.15 of 2016.
Nesarikar
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2022 01:27:18 :::
2/4 06-APEAL-167-20.odt
2. Heard Mr. Ameya C. Sawant, learned counsel for the
Appellant, Mr. Sunil V. Ghadge, learned counsel for Respondent
Nos.2 to 17 and Smt. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State.
3. The prosecution case refers to two separate incidents.
In the first part of the allegations, it was alleged that on
02/10/2014, the Appellant's niece was travelling in a pickup
vehicle to go to Aundh as she had missed her S.T. Bus. At that
time, the Respondent No.14 Suraj Jagtap and Respondent No.15
Pradip Mane outraged her modesty. The informant and his
family had approached the police. But cognizance was not
taken. Because of her complaint and the approach to police, the
Respondents had got angry. On 24/10/2014 all of them entered
the house of the Appellant. They assaulted the Appellant, his
wife and two sons with kicks and fist blows. They also assaulted
his sister-in-law Madhuri. Others from the neighbourhood
rescued them. After that, the Appellant lodged his FIR. The
investigation was carried out and the trial was conducted.
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2022 01:27:18 :::
3/4 06-APEAL-167-20.odt
During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. P.W.1 was
the Appellant's friend. P.W.2 was the Appellant. P.W.3 was the
Appellant's wife. P.W.4 was the Appellant's cousin. P.W.5 was his
neighbour. All of them have consistently deposed about the
incident. However, learned Judge has not discussed their
evidence at all. He has concentrated only on first part of the
allegations regarding outraging of modesty. It is true that the
Appellant's niece or her mother were not examined by the
prosecution. But as far as the incident of assault and trespass is
concerned, evidence was led by the prosecution as mentioned
herein. Inspite of that, learned Judge has not discussed evidence
in that regard. He has erroneously observed that there was
absolutely no evidence against the accused persons, which
shows that no trespass and no assault was committed. Prima
facie, it does appear that the findings are not correct and the
judgment can be termed as perverse. All these points are raised.
4. Therefore following order is passed :
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2022 01:27:18 :::
4/4 06-APEAL-167-20.odt
ORDER
(i) Admit.
(ii) Call record and proceedings with paperbook.
(iii) Action u/s 390 of Cr.P.C. be taken against the
Respondent Nos.2 to 17.
(iv) Advocate Mr. Sunil Ghadge waives service for
final hearing of the Appeal.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
