PRASAD SHIRODKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding the applicant guilty of offence punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code and letting him off on admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. Facts which give rise to this proceeding are as under:

(2.) The learned Magistrate explained the particulars of the accusation to the applicant and since, he pleaded not guilty, put him on trial. The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the applicant. After considering the prosecution evidence, in the light of the defence made by the applicant, the learned Magistrate acquitted the applicant of offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code, but held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code and released him on admonition. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, who maintained the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant is before this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have gone through the evidence on record. PW1/Varsha Kelkar is the complainant whose evidence about the applicant's coming to her office making inquiries about his brother's verification and then abusing her is corroborated by PW2 lady constable Harsha Mapari and PW6 police constable Balgo Gawas, who were present in the office at the time of incident. One Shaikh Mohammad, who was examined as PW8 was also supposed to have been present at the time of the incident, but he turned hostile and did not support prosecution. The witnesses at the panchanama spot PW3/Mohammad Mandale and PW4/Basavraj Asmani do not support the prosecution. PW5/Kiran Podwal was the police inspector who stated about the duty of the applicant on the relevant date. This shows that the applicant could have been in the office of Varsha Kelkar at the relevant time. PW7/ASI Vassudev Naik proved the station diary's extract about duty of the applicant. It was sought to be brought out from the cross-examination by this witness that the applicant was in the office till 6.15 p.m. because the witness stated in cross that "we were in the office up to 6.15 p.m." PW9/PI Nolasco Rapose received the complaint of Varsha Kelkar and PW10/P.S.I. Filomeno Costa conducted investigation.