MAYUR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Application is preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the concurrent finding rendered by the JMFC, Vardha in Regular Criminal Case No. 175/2012 and by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vardha in Criminal Appeal No. 93/2016. By the impugned judgments, the applicant stand convicted for the offence punishable u/s.451 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for four months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to suffer RI for one month. Apart, he is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s.354 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer RI for two months. The sentence of Imprisonment being directed to run concurrently, the fine was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix.

(2.) Heard learned counsel Mr.Amol Hunge for the Applicant and learned APP Mr.Thakare for the State. The incident reported by PW 1 Jayshree Sanjay Chore which is alleged to have taken place on 15/3/2012 at around 1.30 p.m in her house, resulted in registration of C.R.No. 95/2012 which invoke Sec. 451 and 354 of the IPC. It was informed by PW 1, mother of the victim girl, aged 12-13 years, that while her daughter was all alone at home, the accused entered in the house on the pretext of handing over documents of R.D and though her daughter objected to his entry by protesting that her mother was not at home, he gained entry into the house and asked for drinking water. When the victim offered him water, he sat next to her, rolled his hand over her back and head and uttered the words "you have grown up so much". This scared the victim and she shouted for help, when PW 3 and PW 5, residing in the neighborhood came to her rescue and called the persons in the neighborhood. The applicant/accused was caught hold of, and the informant PW 1 was called home. According to her, she visited his place and tried to make him understand the gravity of the situation, but when he threatened that they are at liberty to take whatever steps they want to, she lodged a report in the police station in Wardha city. The complaint resulted in invoking Sec. 451 and 354 of the IPC against the accused.

(3.) To establish its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and the accused was also examined u/s.313 of the Cr.P.C where he denied the case of the prosecution, but specifically took a stand that the mother of the victim owed some money to his mother and on death of his mother, when he demanded the money back, he was falsely prosecuted.