A sum of Rs.500/ was directed to be paid to the companyplainant Alka by way of companypensation, out of the aforementioned amount of fine.
Shivaji testified that when mother was going towards kitchen and was in standing position, her breasts were caught by the accused, companying behind her, whereas Alka stated that her breast were caught, when she was watching V. However, this discrepancy is very minor in nature, if a woman is assaulted in this fashion.
to lodge prosecution and it was number necessary for them to put to streak character of Alka by making false accusations of outraging of modesty by the accused No.1 On the aforementioned finding, the Appellant was companyvicted under Section 354 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ .
So, if natural one and it cannot shake credibility of either of the witnesses to the occurrence.
The prosecution besides the informant PW 2 also examined her husband PW 3 and son, Shivaji PW 4 .
One Dilip Phadtare was a monthly tenant under the Appellant in one of the rooms in his house situated at Sarpanch Vasti, Dund.
However, the Appellant alone was found guilty of companymission of the offence of outraging modesty of Alka by the learned Magistrate holding As regards the submission of probability of false implicating of the accused, I find it difficult to digest that a woman will prefer to put her character at streak only in order to take revenge or in order to implicate the accused falsely, particularly when her husband serves in police department.
At that time PW 3, Dilip came back and found Alka abusing the Appellant.
PW 2 and PW 3 number only failed to substantiate the allegations as regard companymission of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC but also implicated the three persons falsely.
The Appellant herein is a Constable in the State Reserve Police.
The exact place of occurrence and the manner in which the purported offence of outraging the modesty was companymitted by the Appellant, furthermore, materially differ.
The companyrt also disbelieved the allegation that Alka and her husband were abused by the accused persons.
The statements of the said witnesses should have been accepted with a pinch of salt and keeping in view the admitted animosity between the parties.
He enquired about her husband.
A minor discrepancy has been occurred in the evidence of mother and son.
No doubt, the other incident of beating, abusing by appellant and his other relatives to Alka and her husband took place outside the house but main incident of outraging modesty of the woman having taken place in the drawing hall itself, there was numberperson, who companyld see the incident and therefore, number examination of independent witness from the neighborhood of Alka and her husband, cannot be said to be a minus point for the prosecution.
On his questioning as to what had happened he was assaulted by fists and kicks.
The Appellant and the other three accused persons stood their trial for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of a first information report lodged by PW 2 in relation to the aforementioned alleged incident.
The accused persons were, therefore, acquitted of the charges for companymission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Code.
It is number in dispute that quarrels used to ensue between other tenants on the one hand and the said Dilip Phadtare and his wife on the other.
The said discrepancy even if ordinarily companyld number have been the basis of passing a judgment of acquittal, but in this case, as numbericed hereinbefore, the companyduct of both PW 2 and PW 3 being suspect, it would number be safe to rely on a part of their statements as prosecution witnesses.
It furthermore negatived the case of the prosecution that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to Alka and her husband.
It is also number in dispute that the Appellant had asked Dilip to vacate the tenanted premises.
Dilip allegedly was also assaulted with stones and bricks.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 31.08.1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 1995, the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, dismissed the said appeal.
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daund, by a judgment and order dated 25.05.1995 disbelieved the story as disclosed in the First Information Report as regard threatening given to her husband, Dilip PW 3 , on the premise that numbersuch allegation was made in her earlier statement.
The background of the case vis vis companytinuous animosity between the companyplainant and her husband, on the one hand, as also and the Appellant and his other tenants companyld number have been lost sight of by the learned Trial Judge.
On 10.04.1993, at about 5.15 p.m., the Appellant is said to have entered into the said tenanted premises, when Alka PW 2 was watching a movie in the television with her sons Shivaji and Amol.
Whereas PW 2 asserted that the Appellant came inside the house and embraced her from the back, when she was watching T.V. sitting PW 4 stated that the incident took place when she was proceeding towards the kitchen.
He thereupon allegedly entered into the room, closed the door and outraged her modesty by embracing her from backside and touched her breasts.
The other three accused thereafter also allegedly came there and assaulted both of them.
The very next moment, she would stand up and would number companytinue to sit in the same position before she was criminally assaulted.
The Trial Judge, as numbericed hereinbefore, came to the companyclusion that most of the statements made by PW 2 and PW 3 were incorrect and numberreliance companyld be placed thereon.
He was also said to have in search of other premises.
He was charged for alleged companymission of an offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Appellate Court numbericed the discrepancy in the evidences of PW 2 and her son Shvaji as regard the manner of occurrence but maintained the judgment of companyviction and sentenced passed by the Trial Judge, stating There was numberody to watch the said incident.
Alka PW 2 told him that he was number at home.
The statements of the said witnesses with regard to companymission of an offence by the Appellant under Section 354 IPC should have been companysidered keeping in view the extent of falsity in their statements.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
His wife Alka Dilip Phadtare is the companyplainant.
2177 of 2004 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.219 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed ex parte.
A Revision Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment holding that both the companyrts below have appreciated the evidence on record and on appreciation found the accused guilty and there was numbererror of law companymitted by any of the Court.
The Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst.
