Bombay High Court
Rahul Shivaji Ghodke vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 11 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:1292
Urmila Ingale 16-apeal-1048-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2023
RAHUL SHIVAJI GHODKE ..APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr. Shubham Sane h/f Adv. Priyal Sarda, for Appellant.
Ms. Sakshee P. Chavan, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the State.
Mr. Jalindar Nalkul, Dy. S.P. Barshi present.
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 11, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Shubham Sane, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Patil, learned APP and Ms.Chavan, learned
counsel appointed to represent the respondent no.2-
informant.
2. The date of the incident is 05/06/2023. The FIR is
dated 06/06/2023 for the offences punishable under
sections 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "Atrocities Act"). It is the
Urmila Ingale 16-apeal-1048-23.doc
allegation of the first informant who is the wife of the
appellant's father's brother that when the respondent no.2,
her husband and son had been to the village where the
ancestral lands are situated, upset that the respondent no.2
who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community had
married the appellant's uncle who belongs to the upper
caste, the appellant abused the first informant in the name
of her caste. This incident allegedly happened in the
ancestral home of the Ghodke family of which the appellant
as well as the respondent no.2 are a part.
3. Learned APP as well as Ms.Chavan- learned counsel for
respondent no.2, vehemently opposed the appeal. My
attention is invited to the statement of the respondent no.2.
It is submitted that the statement clearly reveals that there
are specific allegations made against the appellant of
having abused respondent no.2 in the name of her caste. It
is further submitted that these abuses though in the four
walls of the ancestral house, were hurled in the presence of
witnesses whose statements have been recorded
corroborating the allegations of the complainant. It is further
submitted that the appellant who is the nephew of the
Urmila Ingale 16-apeal-1048-23.doc
respondent no.2, has threatened to kill her and has
humiliated her in the name of her caste only because she
married the appellant's uncle who belongs to the upper
caste. Learned counsel then invited my attention to the
provisions of section 18 of the Atrocities Act to submit that
having regard to the nature of the accusations, the bar
under section 18 of the Atrocities Act is clearly attracted in
the present case. It is next submitted that on 02/06/2023
one NC was recorded by the respondent no.2's husband
against the appellant for having assaulted him.
4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the
materials on record. From the materials, it is seen that
there is dispute between the family of the appellant and
that of the respondent no.2 over the right of way. The
marriage of the respondent no.2 with the appellant's uncle
was solemnized 12 years prior to the date of the incident.
On 02/06/2023, the appellant had also registered a non-
cognizable complaint against his uncle i.e. respondent
no.2's husband for having assaulted the appellant. Thus,
there are cross cases registered by the appellant as well the
respondent no.2's husband against each other on
Urmila Ingale 16-apeal-1048-23.doc
02/06/2023. The present incident is of 05/06/2023.
5. Learned APP on instructions informed that the charge-
sheet has already been filed against the appellant in the
present case. The investigation is thus complete. Prima
case, in my opinion, having regard to the dispute which the
branch of the appellant and that of the respondent no.2 who
are closely related to each other have over the right of way,
the possibility of a false implication cannot be ruled out. In
such circumstances, according to me, the bar under section
18 of the Atrocities Act will not be attracted. The incident
has happened in the ancestral home and not in public view.
The witnesses in whose presence the incident has taken
place are from the Ghodake family, related to the appellant
as well as the respondent no.2, siding one or the other
family member depending on their interest. The appeal
therefore deserves to be allowed.
6. In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with FIR No. 336 dated 06/06/2023 registered with Vairag
Police Station, Solapur, the applicant - Rahul Shivaji Ghodke
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
Urmila Ingale 16-apeal-1048-23.doc
7. The applicant to co-operate with the investigation and
shall report to the concerned police station as and when
called and attend the trial regularly.
8. I appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by Ms.
Sakshee P. Chavan, learned Advocate to have effectively
represented the respondent no.2 while opposing this appeal.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
