STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SURESH SAKHARAM SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Criminal Application No.412 of 2013 was filed by the original complainant for leave to assist the prosecution at the time of final hearing of the appeal. That application was allowed on 26.4.2013. Subsequently, on 14.1.2020 when the appeal was taken up, the original complainant's representative was present in Court who informed the Court that their Advocate is not present on that day. The matter was stood over to 21.1.2020 and as accused were not represented, the Court appointed Mr.Rohan Savant, an Advocate as Amicus Curiae. In fact, the Court also had asked the original complainant's representative whether she wishes to engage the Advocate from the Legal Aid Services Authority. The representative stated that she wanted the [xxx xxx] herself to argue. It appears that complainant has been sending representations to the registry for expeditiously hearing this matter as complainant is being continued to be harassed by the accused. I am not dealing with these allegations because that is not the subject matter of this appeal.

(2.) Today again no Advocate appeared for the original complainant and her representative says she is happy if learned APP Ms.Anamika Malhotra argues the matter. Pursuant thereto the learned APP and the learned Amicus Curiae were heard and the Court also with their assistance, went through the record and proceedings, the impugned judgment and the evidence. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.Rohan Savant, learned amicus curiae. The endeavour put forth by Mr.Rohan Savant has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.

(3.) It is prosecution's case that complainant Anusayabai Govind Lokhande was living with her husband, three daughters and three grand children in Heerabai Patil chawl at Thane, since prior to 1994. The house of accused is situated in front of the house of complainant.