JAICHAND ALIAS PANCHAM PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 1999, confirming the judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 passed by J.M.F.C. (Court No.6), Nagpur, in Criminal Case No.405 of 1998, convicting the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him on each count to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, the present criminal revision application came to be filed By the applicant.

(2.) In support of revision application, Mr. Mirza learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the courts below have ignored the basic ingredients of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code that the prosecution should prove that the abuses or obscene words are uttered in any public place to the annoyance of others. In the instant case, according to him, the evidence that is on record is that P.W.I Ratnamala was standing in her court yard while the applicant was standing in his court yard and then he abused her. When P.W.I Ratnamala asked the applicant the reasons for giving abuses he got annoyed and had beaten her by kicks and hand blows. According to Mr. Mirza the abuses, even according to prosecution were abuses, not hurled in public place but in the court yard and therefore no offence under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code was proved by the prosecution. He then argued that the prosecution failed to prove any injury on the person of P.W. 1 - Ratnamala the complainant. He submitted that the courts below ought to have disbelieved the evidence of complainant regarding assault on her by the applicant and ought not to have convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. Alternatively, Mr. Mirza argued that the applicant is working in Reserve Bank of India as sepoy and should be released on probation for good conduct and is also ready to pay compensation up to Rs.25,000/- to the complainant or as would be decided by this Court and thereby the applicant would be able to save his employment.

(3.) Mr. Mirza has submitted the paper-book from the District Court and eventually this Court also received the record from the lower court. He also pointed out that in the year 1990, at the instance of P.W.I Ratnamala, the applicant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506(b) and 509 of Indian Penal Code in Regular Criminal Case No.669 of 1990 but was acquitted of the said offences on 13.9.1991 and therefore this Court should hold that P.W. 1 Ratnamala is habitual in making false report against the applicant.