Anil Rajaram Thorat vs State Of Maharashtra
2023 Latest Caselaw 7878 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:22025



                    Urmila Ingale                                   20. revn st 13925.23.doc

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO. 13925 OF 2023
                                                 WITH
                               INTERIM APPLICATION ST. NO. 13927 OF 2023

                    Anil Rajaram Thorat                                ..Applicant
                          VS.
                    The State of Maharashtra and anr.          ..Respondents


                    Ms. Suvarna Yadav, for the Applicant.
                    Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the State.


                                                   CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

                                                   DATE     : AUGUST 4, 2023

                    ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. Revision taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of

the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP.

3. The applicant is the original accused. The applicant by this

revision filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 ('CrPC', for short) has challenged the judgment and order dated

09/02/2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur,

whereby the appellate Court confirmed the order of conviction

recorded by the trial Court.

Urmila Ingale 20. revn st 13925.23.doc

4. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under

sections 354-A(2) and 354-D(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

('IPC', for short). The trial Court convicted the applicant for the

offence punishable under sections 354-A(2) of IPC and sentenced

him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, accused had to undergo 7

days rigorous imprisonment. The applicant was also convicted for

the offence punishable under section 354-D(2) of the IPC and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 7 days rigorous

imprisonment.

5. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:

The complainant resides at village Vashi along with her husband, 2

minor daughters and son. The applicant-accused is from her

community. The applicant resides in close proximity to the house of

the complainant. The applicant is a labourer working in the

agricultural field and so also is the complainant. It is the prosecution

case that much prior to the filing of the complaint, when the

applicant had come to the house of the complainant in connection

with some work, he tried to seduce her. The complainant, therefore,

Urmila Ingale 20. revn st 13925.23.doc

reported this to her husband. The issue was resolved before the

Committee known as 'Tanta Mukti Samiti'. So far as the present

offence is concerned, it is alleged that on 02/04/2014 at about 10.00

a.m. when the complainant went to the agricultural field for labour

work, the applicant followed her and when he found her to be alone,

asked for sexual favour. The applicant gave threats to the

complainant that if she refuses the favours demanded, the applicant

will ensure that marriage of her daughter will not solemnize. The

complainant informed this incident to her husband when she

returned home in the afternoon. Later in the evening, the FIR was

registered.

6. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses in

support of the charge. On behalf of defence, 2 witnesses came to be

examined.

7. I have gone through the concurrent findings of fact recorded by

the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the

applicant submitted that there are contradictions as regards the

narration of the incident in the evidence of complainant-P.W.1,

complainant's husband- PW.2 and P.W.4 - the President of Tanta Mukti

Samiti. It is further submitted that the Courts below have not

Urmila Ingale 20. revn st 13925.23.doc

appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. Drawing my

attention to the evidence on record, learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that only on account of the fact that the complainant's

husband was annoyed with the fact that the applicant had an affair

with the complainant, that she was forced to lodge the FIR.

According to learned counsel, the said fact can be borne out from the

evidence on record.

8. Learned APP argued in support of the orders passed by the

Courts below.

9. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through

the depositions and also the findings recorded by the Courts below.

The evidence of P.W.1- complainant is corroborated by that of P.W.2-

husband of the complainant and P.W.4- President of Tanta Mukti

Samiti in material particulars. It is the version of the complainant

that the applicant followed her to the agricultural field and

demanded sexual favours. The said incident was reported by her to

her husband whereupon her husband confronted the applicant-

accused. Though there is some delay in lodging FIR, in my opinion,

as rightly observed by the Courts below, it cannot be said that delay is

fatal to the prosecution case. Considering the sensitivity of the matter,

Urmila Ingale 20. revn st 13925.23.doc

upon deliberation with the family members that the complainant

lodged the FIR.

10. It is pertinent to note that PW.4 has deposed that even on the

previous occasion there was an incident of a similar nature reported

by the complainant to the Tanta Mukti Samiti when he was the

President. The applicant then had assured that he will not repeat

such act in future and the matter was resolved. There is nothing in

cross examination of the witnesses to discredit the testimony of the

proseuction witnesses. So far as the defence witness is concerned,

D.W.1 has stated that on the date of the incident, the applicant-

accused was in his company; however, no specific details are stated.

In fact, D.W.1 in cross examination has stated that when he was a

police-patil, for committing a similar act, the applicant-accused was

pardoned and the applicant had assured that henceforth he would

not commit such act. The evidence of D.W.1 in fact supports the case

of the prosecution. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent

findings of fact in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 397

of CrPC. The Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence

on record. I see no perversity in the orders passed by the Courts

below to warrant interference.

Urmila Ingale 20. revn st 13925.23.doc

11. After I had indicated that I am not inclined to interfere in

this revision application with the findings recorded by the Courts

below, learned counsel for the applicant had sought permission to

interact with the applicant through video conferencing facility

available in the office of the Legal Services Authority.

12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant has expressed remorse and prayed that since the sentence

undergone by him as of now with remission is almost 7 months, the

applicant's sentence be reduced to that already undergone. Learned

counsel for the applicant on instructions submitted that the applicant

is even willing to stay outside the area of the Village-Vashi, Taluka-

Walva, District-Sangli for a period of 6 months from today.

13. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, though I am

not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded,

I am inclined to reduce the sentence to that already undergone by the

applicant which will meet the ends of justice. Further, the applicant

on his release from the custody shall not enter the area of Village-

Vashi, Taluka-Walva, District-Sangli for the period of 6 months from

today.

14. Revision application is partly allowed in the above terms

Urmila Ingale 20. revn st 13925.23.doc

without interfering with the findings recorded by the Courts below.

The applicant be set at liberty forthwith.

15. In view of disposal of the revision application, interim

application also stands disposed of.

16. I appreciate the assistance rendered by learned counsel for

the applicant who was engaged to represent the applicant through

legal aid.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)