Bombay High Court
Abhyuday Narayan Mhatre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 August, 2024
Author: N.R. Borkar
Bench: N. R. Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:33981
902-revn-457-14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 457 OF 2014
Abhyuday Narayan Mhatre ...Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. XYZ ...Respondents
Ms Pushpa Ganediwala a/w. Ms Arwa Lunawadawal and
Mr.Chaudhari M. Mujeebuddin i/b Ms. Anshu Agrawal for the
Applicant.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 08.08.2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. This revision application takes exception to the judgment
and order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Vasai in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2013.
2. The applicant was accused in E Summary Criminal Case
No.3803/2003. The trial Court, by the Judgment and order
dated 05.03.2013 convicted the applicant for the offences
Digitally
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI
LIYAKAT
punishable under Sections 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2024.08.26
14:36:27
+0530
Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
902-revn-457-14.doc
6 months on each count. By the impugned Judgment and
order, the appellate Court has confirmed the Judgment and
order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed
by the applicant.
3. The house of the victim was near the agricultural field of
the applicant/accused. There was dispute between one Istelin
Rebello and the present applicant/accused on account of right
of way. It is alleged that the victim was supporting the said
Istelin Rebello in the civil suit filed by her against the present
applicant/accused and thus the applicant/accused was
annoyed with the victim.
4. The alleged incident took place on 09.10.2013 at about
4.45 p.m.. According to the prosecution at the time of alleged
incident, the victim was watering the trees in front of her
house. It is alleged that, at that time, the applicant/accused
came there and started abusing her in filthy language. He
caught hold of her hand and torn the clothes which were on her
person. It is alleged that then he took off his pant and
exhibited his private part to her.
902-revn-457-14.doc
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
learned APP for the respondent/State.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are
material omissions and contradiction in the evidence of
witnesses. It is submitted that the victim in her complaint as
well as in her evidence has deliberately suppressed the facts
that there was long standing dispute between them. It is
submitted that in such circumstances, in absence of any
independent evidence, the conviction of the applicant can not
be allowed to stand.
7. On the other hand, the learned APP supported the
impugned Judgment and order of the Courts below. It is
submitted that this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction
may not interfere with the Judgment and order of the Courts
below in absence of any perversity or illegality.
8. I have perused the evidence on record. According to the
victim, the applicant/accused was annoyed with her as she was
supporting Istelin Rebello in the Suit filed by her against the
902-revn-457-14.doc
applicant/accused. However, perusal of cross examination of
the victim would reveal that there was a long standing dispute
between the victim and the applicant/accused on account of
right of way and they were not on talking terms since the year
2003. It appears that in relation to the said dispute even Police
report was lodged. The victim has not disclosed all these facts
either in the complaint lodged by her or in her evidence.
Apart from it, the perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, the
daughter of the victim shows that the victim used to visit police
station frequently. However, when this suggestion was put to
the victim, she out-rightly denied it.
9. PW-5 Suresh Newase, the Investigating Officer has
admitted that he has recorded the statement of the neighbours
of the victim in relation to the incident. However, the
prosecution has not examined any independent witness. It
appears that he has not seized the alleged torn clothes. He
has further admitted that prior to the alleged incident, a
complaint was lodged by the applicant/accused against him.
902-revn-457-14.doc
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of
any independent evidence, the conviction of the applicant
cannot be allowed to stand. The impugned judgment and
order of the Courts below therefore will have to be set aside.
In the result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
a] Criminal Revision Application is allowed;
b] The judgment and order dated 5.3.2013 passed by
the learned 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class Vasai in
Summary Criminal Case No. 3803 of 2003 and the
Judgment and order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Criminal Appeal No. 4
of 2013 are hereby set aside. The applicant/accused is
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354
and 506 of the IPC;
c] Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
