Bombay High Court
Dattatraya Rambhau Nalapure vs State Of Maha on 7 February, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 965-Cri.Rev.Appln.340-04, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.340 OF 2004
Dattatraya s/o Rambhau Nalapure,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Pimpalgaon (Amba),
Tq. and District Latur. ... Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Jayashree Nawale and Mr. V. D.
Salunke.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 07.02.2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The applicant/accused has preferred the criminal
revision application against the concurrent judgments of the
trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting him for the
offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued
that the probable defence of the applicant that the victim may
suffer injuries due to fall in the field has been totally discarded.
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2023 02:31:58 :::
2 965-Cri.Rev.Appln.340-04, oral jud.odt
She has also vehemently argued that the sole evidence of the
victim is not sufficient to prove the guilt. This material aspect
has been ignored by both Courts. The defence of false
implication of the applicant due to political rivalry has also
been not properly noticed. Four (4) days before the incident,
he was assaulted by one Govind and Vyankat. Again, on the
day of incident Govind beat him, so he had been to the police
to lodge the complaint, but the police did not take his
complaint. However, he was sent to the hospital. To defeat
and to give go bye his complaint, the complainant in collusion
with the said person, filed the present false complaint.
Ignoring the material evidence is the error of law and that can
be taken care of by this Court under Section 397 and 401 of
the Cr.P.C. The applicant had unblemished record. Both
judgments and orders are erroneous and illegal. Hence, the
criminal revision application may be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent-State has
vehemently argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix is
supported with the admissible evidence. She has no reason to
lie. The defence of the accused is improbable. Both Courts
have considered the defence of the accused. This Court has a
limited revisional jurisdiction. It cannot re-appreciate the
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2023 02:31:58 :::
3 965-Cri.Rev.Appln.340-04, oral jud.odt
evidence. Unless there is a patent defects or error of
jurisdiction or law, this Court cannot interfere the concurrent
judgments of two Courts. To bolster his argument, he relied on
the case of Malkeet Singh Gill Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022
(8) SCC 204. Supporting the two concurrent judgments, he has
vehemently argued that the sole testimony of the woman if
free from contradictions and omissions can be a sufficient for
conviction. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of
Phool Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 (2) SCC 74 . He
further argued that the defence of the applicant was not
probable. No woman would put her life at stake making such
allegations that may be harmful to her reputation. He prayed
to dismissed the criminal revision application.
5. The ratio laid down in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill
(supra) as regards the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is
well settled. The law is also settled that the sole testimony of
the victim / woman if inspired the confidence such evidence
cannot be discarded and the accused may be convicted.
6. Perused the two concurrent judgments and orders of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the First Appellate
Court i.e. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur. The judgments
and orders impugned before this Court appears to have been
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2023 02:31:58 :::
4 965-Cri.Rev.Appln.340-04, oral jud.odt
within the four corners of the law. The evidence of the
witnesses has been discussed elaborately. The incident
happened in field of one Yedba Pisal when she was returning
from the field. She made the specific allegations against the
applicant that he hold her right hand and dragged her into the
field of said Yedba Pisal. She also deposed that the applicant
was asking her to give a kiss and become his wife.
7. The intention can be gathered either from the conduct
and the words used. The words uttered by the applicant
coupled with dragging her into the field is the evidence to
believe that he dragged her with intent to outrage her modesty.
Her evidence is supported with the medical evidence. There
appears nothing brought on the record that spot of incident
was like that she may suffer the injuries. Her blouse was also
torn and Mangalsutra was broken. The act of the applicant
were apparently predetermined.
8. Perusal of impugned judgments and orders reveal that
the evidence led by the parties have been correctly
appreciated. There are no reasons to disbelieve the sole
testimony of the victim. There is no error on the face of the
record. There are no grounds to interfere the judgments
::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2023 02:31:58 :::
5 965-Cri.Rev.Appln.340-04, oral jud.odt
impugned before the Court. In the result, the criminal Revision
Application fails. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
(ii) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur
is directed to issue the conviction warrant against
the applicant, if he has not undergone the
sentence.
(iii) Record and Proceedings be returned to the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur.
(iv) Rule stands discharged.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
