USHA PANDURANG TANPURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/original accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 15th Jan. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Special Case No. 8 of 1998 thereby convicting the appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and sentencing her to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months apart from payment of fine of Rs. 500.00 , in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The appellant/accused was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the IPC.

(2.) Heard Ms. Pracheta Rathod, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/accused. She argued that evidence of prosecution witnesses is totally inconsistent and they are disclosing different places of incident. Though Informant PW-1 Mahadeo Gaikwad has stated that the incident took place at the door of the Accounts Branch of the office, other witness PW-2 Manohar Gaikwad examined by the prosecution is stating that the incident took place at the platform of the verandah of the office. The learned advocate for the appellant/accused further argued that there is variance in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding alleged casteist abuses. In submission of the learned advocate for the appellant/accused, the evidence of prosecution witnesses demonstrate that there was motive for false implication of the appellant/accused because of her complaint to the Executive Engineer against the Police Sub-Inspector of the local police station. She relied on version of PW-4 Rajan Shah, Executive Engineer to buttress this contention. It is further argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR apart from deliberate delay in recording statements of prosecution witnesses. Reliance is also placed on the fact that initially no offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered, but subsequently, it was added to the case diary of the crime in question. For this purpose, evidence of PW6 Manish Ajinkya, Deputy Superintendent of Police, is relied by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/accused. The learned advocate for the appellant drew my attention to court questions to several prosecution witnesses by the learned trial court and argued that serious prejudice is caused to the appellant/accused as the learned court has assumed the role of the prosecutor.

(3.) The learned APP opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction by arguing that evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent in material particulars, and therefore, the offence alleged against the appellant/accused is made out by the prosecution.