GAJANAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed by Ad hoc A.S.J. -1, Amravati in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2007, confirming the judgment and order dated 05.04.2007 in Summary Criminal Case No. 1245/2004 passed by J.MF.C. Court No. 4, Morshi insofar as conviction under Sec. 354 of the IPC is concerned and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 250/ -, the present revision was filed by the revision applicant.

(2.) In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that on 18.12.2004, the prosecutrix 'V' of village Dapori had gone to the STD booth for making telephone call along with her mother. While returning back towards her house, opposite the house of one Manohar Dabrase, revision applicant came near them and gave a push to her and caught hold of her hand and pressed her breast. When the mother of the prosecutrix tried to separate him, one Manohar Dabrase, Sachin Umale, Shirish Vighe and Vijay Kathale gathered on the spot and as such the applicant ran away. Thereafter, when the prosecutrix 'V' and her mother started going towards Police Station, they were obstructed and threatened by him of the dire consequences on making report. The FIR was lodged, Crime No. 158/2004 under Sec. 354 and 506 of the IPC was registered. The investigation was carried out by ASI Sukhdeo Sarwatkar who submitted the charge -sheet against the revision applicant. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Judge convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Ss. 354 and 506 of the IPC. The appellate Court, however, acquitted him of the charge under Sec. 506 IPC and maintained conviction under Sec. 354 of the IPC. Hence, this revision.

(3.) In support of the revision, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the revision applicant vehemently argued that there is discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecutrix 'V' and her mother which goes to the root of the matter and at any rate the appellate Court acquitted the revision applicant of the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of the IPC, disbelieving that part of the story of the prosecution. He then submitted that if the evidence of the prosecutrix 'V' and her mother is considered in proper perspective, so also the FIR Exh. -14 coupled with the fact that the independent witnesses refused to support the prosecution, it was risky to convict the revision applicant. At any rate, according to him, there was no proof of intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix 'V' as required by the law. He, therefore, submitted that the courts below have not carefully seen the evidence of the prosecutrix and her mother and have landed in error of jurisdiction by recording the conviction, which is perverse. He, then submitted that the dispute between the parties was thus converted into offence under Sec. 354 of the IPC. He relied on the following decisions.