LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-78

MANOHAR SAWAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 12, 2007
MANOHAR SAWAI RATHOD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24-2-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, washim in Atrocity Case No. 190/1996 convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one and half month for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under : on 11-8-1993 at about 2. 00 p. m. at village Wanoja the accused entered the dwelling house of Ms. Mira Pundlik Ghodke with intent to outrage her modesty and assaulted her. Pursuant to the report lodged by said Ms. Mira at Mangrulpith police Station, F. I. R. was registered against the accused. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Washim. In the course of trial before the additional Sessions Judge, Washim the prosecution examined two witnesses. the complainant Ms. Mira and the investigating officer A. S. I. Ramdas Malve.

(3.) Just before passing of the Judgment on 24-2-1999 an application duly signed by the accused and said Ms. Mira for compounding the offences was filed. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge solely on the ground that the charge was already framed. The appellant by the present appeal has challenged the conviction and sentences imposed on him.