Bombay High Court
Sukhdeo S/O Natthuji Barekar vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Shegaon ... on 25 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:9783
REVN 168-2022 (J).odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 168 OF 2022
Sukhdeo s/o. Natthuji Barekar,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o. Khapari, Tah. Chimur,
District - Chandrapur. ....APPLICANT
....VERSUS....
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Shegoan, Tah. Warora,
District-Chandrapur. ....RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.P.Dhok, Advocate for applicant.
Shri D.P.Thakre, APP for respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 20/09/2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 25/09/2025
JUDGMENT
Heard finally by consent of both the parties.
2. By way of present Criminal Revision Application,
the original accused no. 1 has challenged the judgment
convicting him for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
"IPC") so also the judgment passed in appeal maintaining his
conviction.
3. In all, four accused persons were tried by the
Court of Magistrate for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 452, 323, 354, 294 and 506 r/w.
Section 34 of IPC. The accused nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted for
commission of offences and only present applicant was
convicted.
4. According to the case of the prosecution, on
04/11/2013 on the eve of Diwali Festival, the informant was
brooming in her courtyard, at which time, some children were
bursting crackers including son of the accused no. 1. The
victim of crime, therefore, gave understanding to the son of
the accused no. 1 and asked him to burst the crackers away
from the courtyard. Due to the aforesaid reason, quarrel took
place, in which, all the accused persons assaulted the victim
and outrage her modesty. Apart from it, the applicant came
inside her house and pulled her by hair and took out in the
courtyard so also beaten her. The applicant then pulled the
victim towards road side and sat over her chest and pressed
her breasts. The witnesses by named Shaikh Husain and
Chirkutabai came to rescue her and sent her back to her
home.
5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined the victim as PW-1, Mr. Shalik Dhone as PW-2
(witness to the spot panchanama), Shaikh Husain as PW-3
(eye witness), Chirkutabai as P.W-4 (eye witness), Ramesh
Gharat as PW-5 (husband of the victim), Hiraman Dadmal as
PW-6 (brother of victim), Keshav Gedam as PW-7 (Police
Constable). The applicant was inquired under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he stated reason of
false implication as previous civil dispute pending between
the husband of the victim and maternal aunt of applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that
there is delay in lodging the FIR so also the story advanced by
the prosecution is not convincing. He stated that the victim
was not subjected to the medical examination and there is
delay in recording the statement of witnesses. He further
argued that the Courts below have given the findings which
are incorrect and improper. Per contra, the learned APP for
the State has submitted that the judgments passed are based
on proper appreciation of the evidence and therefore,
interference at the hands of this Court is not required.
7. I have considered the entire material so also
arguments advanced by both the learned counsels. At the
outset, it is required to be stated that the applicant though
was charged for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 294, 323, 504, 452 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, he was
convicted for offences punishable under Section 354 and 448
of IPC only.
8. PW-1 who is victim of crime has categorically
stated that, on the day of incident, the accused outraged her
modesty not only by entering her house but also by pulling
her hair, pushing her down on the ground, and further sitting
on her chest. The accused/applicant had further pressed her
breasts. In cross-examination of the victim, nothing material
is brought on record. If the cross-examination is perused, it
would reveal that, certain omissions were pointed out and a
suggestion was given that, the false complaint was filed
unnecessarily in order to harass the applicant. It was also
suggested that, since there is a dispute between the applicant
and the family of the victim regarding a house and
agricultural field, false evidence was given. PW-3 is an
independent witness by named Shaikh Husain who has
supported the case of the prosecution. PW-4 Chirkutabai is
also an eye witness to the incident who has not supported the
case of the prosecution in its entirety but her testimony would
reveal that the incident had taken place where the applicant
had uttered some obscene words. PW-5 and 6 are the
husband and brother of the victim who have also supported
the case of the prosecution. PW-5 has stated that, he along
with the brother of the victim at the time of incident were
sitting in the house and were chitchatting, at which time, the
victim was brooming in the courtyard. He has also narrated
the incident wherein the accused had caught hold of the
victim's hair, brought her outside and by sitting on her chest,
pressed her breasts. PW-6 who is the brother of the victim has
also deposed on the line of PW-5. It is necessary to mention
here the nature of dispute; which would result into false
implication has not been brought on record by way of
material evidence or by way of preponderance of probabilities
by the applicant. The crime in question is against the woman
and it is very difficult to believe that the woman, her husband
and her brother would depose against the accused person in
order to implicate him in false cases. The consistent evidence
of PW-1 (victim of crime), PW-3 (independent witness), PW-4
and 5 clearly reveals that the accused has committed the
crime and has been rightly convicted by Courts below. The
findings given by the Courts below cannot be said to be
perverse.
9. So far as the contention of the counsel for the
applicant that there is a delay in lodging FIR since the
incident has taken place on 04/11/2013 and the report was
lodged on 22/11/2013 is concerned, it needs to be noted that
it has come in evidence that within two days itself the
complaint was lodged by the victim with the office of the
Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur on 06/11/2013 which
was brought on record by way of examination-in-chief and
documents filed along with Exh. 37. Perusal of Exh. 37 and
document filed with it, would reveal that an immediate
attempt was made by the victim of crime to set the criminal
law in motion. Thus, the argument that there was a delay in
lodging the FIR is not acceptable. So far as the question of
non-referring the victim for medical examination is
concerned, it is necessary to mention here that, though the
applicant was charged for commission of offence punishable
under Section 323 of IPC, he was acquitted for it.
10. In the aforesaid background and considering the
scope of revision against conviction which warrants
interference only when perverse finding are giving and
inadmissible evidence is appreciated, I am of the view that no
case is made out for interference and therefore, the present
application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the
Criminal Revision Application (REVN) stands dismissed.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)
B.T.Khapekar
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/09/2025 19:42:01
