Bombay High Court
Avantika Suresh Mhatre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 8 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:43534
49-revn270-2021.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2021
Avantika Suresh Mhatre ... Applicant
V/s.
ATUL The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.10.09
10:29:09 +0530
Mr. Gaurav Parkar for the applicant.
Mr. Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Yogita Sangle, PSI, Wadkhal Police Station, District
Raigad, is present.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 8, 2025
P.C.:
1. This revision application questions the legality and
correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Courts below,
acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 452, 323, 324, 354, 504, and 427 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 135 read
with Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The applicant
contends that the findings of acquittal are unsustainable in law
and fact, as the evidence on record clearly establishes the unlawful
assembly, assault, and house trespass committed by the
respondents.
2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 30 January
2011 at about 5.00 p.m., a raid was conducted by the State Excise
Department on the premises of one Ganpat Mhatre at village
49-revn270-2021.doc
Gadab, where illicit liquor was being sold. Members of Ganpat's
family suspected that the husband of the informant, Avantika
Suresh Mhatre, had informed the authorities about the illegal
activity. This suspicion gave rise to hostility. Consequently, the wife
of Ganpat started abusing Avantika from the door of her house.
When Avantika questioned her about the abuses, she was told that
her husband had informed the Excise officials, and the family
members of Ganpat incited their relatives to beat the informant
and her family.
3. Later, around 6.00 p.m., all the accused persons, forming an
unlawful assembly, entered the house of the informant by kicking
open the door. Accused Dharmaji and Rupesh were armed with
wooden logs, while Vithabai and Sunesha stood outside the house,
hurling abuses. Inside, accused Dharmaji assaulted Avantika with a
wooden log on her left wrist. Accused Pratibha struck her with fists
and blows and, in the scuffle, tore her gown. Meanwhile, Rupesh
attempted to assault the mother-in-law, Jankibai, by raising the
wooden log and further banged her head against the wall, causing
injuries. The accused also damaged household articles and threw
chairs around the house.
4. The incident was witnessed by Rukhmini Mhatre and Sunita
Langi, who intervened to rescue Avantika and her family. On
hearing their cries, the accused left the spot carrying their wooden
logs. At about 6.30 p.m., when the husband of the informant
returned home, the informant narrated the incident to him and
thereafter lodged a complaint at Pen Police Station.
49-revn270-2021.doc
5. The prosecution thus relied upon the direct evidence of the
informant and the supporting witnesses to establish the
ingredients of house trespass, use of criminal force, assault,
outraging of modesty, and mischief. The evidence, if believed,
demonstrates the existence of an unlawful assembly with a
common object of causing hurt and humiliation to the informant's
family.
6. The trial court and appellate court, however, recorded
acquittal without properly appreciating the consistency in the
eyewitness account, the medical certificates corroborating the
injuries, and the promptness in lodging the FIR. The reasoning
adopted appears to have been influenced by minor contradictions
and omissions which do not go to the root of the incident. The
courts below failed to consider that the delay of only half an hour
in lodging the complaint reinforces the credibility of the
informant's version.
7. The law is well settled that while assessing evidence in a
case of unlawful assembly and house trespass, the Court must look
to the overall conduct of the accused, the injuries sustained by the
victims, and the corroborative medical and circumstantial material.
The findings of acquittal in the present case, therefore, call for
close scrutiny in revision, to ensure that the appreciation of
evidence is in accordance with settled legal principles and that
miscarriage of justice is avoided.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent
49-revn270-2021.doc
findings recorded by the Courts below. The prosecution version
mainly rests upon the evidence of the informant and her relatives,
who are interested witnesses. Their testimonies, though detailed,
contain certain material inconsistencies in respect of the exact
manner of assault, the presence of each accused at the scene, and
the use of weapons. These contradictions were rightly noticed by
the trial court and the appellate court.
9. The element of criminal trespass under Section 452 IPC also
requires proof of entry into the house with intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy. The evidence only shows
that there was a verbal altercation arising out of a prior quarrel,
followed by a brief scuffle. The intention to commit an offence or
to outrage modesty is not established beyond reasonable doubt.
10. The allegations of tearing the gown and outraging modesty
are vague. There was also no independent corroboration for that
part of the case. The trial court, therefore, was justified in holding
that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section
354 IPC.
11. It is a settled principle that when two views are possible on
the evidence, the revisional court will not substitute its own
appreciation for that of the courts below. Interference in revision is
warranted only when the finding is perverse or suffers from
manifest illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court and
affirmed by the appellate court are based on a reasonable
assessment of the evidence and cannot be said to be perverse.
49-revn270-2021.doc
12. The trial court and appellate court have given cogent reasons
for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and extending benefit of
doubt to the accused. This Court finds those reasons to be
consistent with the record and the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
13. In view of the above discussion, no case is made out for
interference under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The revision application, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
