HUSAIN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 30.08.2001 passed in the Special Case No. 34/1995 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months for offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month. However, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In brief the prosecution story is that on 06.02.1995 Maroti, minor son of complainant Sau. Parvatibai had been to the field for grazing cattle. Accused asked complainant's son Maroti why he is grazing cattle at a particular place. Saying so, accused beat Maroti by sticks and fist blows. Maroti, therefore, came to the house while weeping along with his cattle at about 10:00 a.m. and narrated the incident to his mother Sau. Parvatibai. Accused also followed Maroti to the house, and on entering the house, raised quarrel and man-handled the complainant by catching her hand due to which her bangles were broken and in the course of said transaction accused had removed her saree thereby outraging her modesty. Maroti raised shouts due to which neighbour P.W. 3 Vijay Rathod came on the spot.

(2.) Sau. Parvatibai lodged report about this incident on the same day at about 8:10 p.m. with Police Station Pandharkawada. On the basis of report, Crime No. 40/1995 came to be registered during the course of investigation, Sau. Parvatibai as well as her son Maroti were referred for medical examination and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned J.M.F.C, Kelapur Court.

(3.) In the course of time case came to be committed to the Court of Session for trial. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 323 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to which accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. The defence of accused is of total denial. It is the case of accused that he came to be implicated in a false case at the instance of P.W. 3 Vijay Rathod as they were on inimical terms.