The Bombay High Court rejected the State's application for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a case alleging offenses under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. The Court found the prosecution evidence unreliable due to contradictions and delay.
Application for leave to file appeal against acquittal is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
jdk
1 crapln255510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2555 OF 2010 (FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL) IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 200
The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant]
Vs.
Ramchandra Hari Patil ..Respondents
Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the Applicant-State
CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 11, 2010
P.C. :
1 The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order whereby respondents came to be acquitted. By judgment and order dated 7.4.2007 the learned J.M.F.C. Malkapur at Shahuwadi acquitted the respondents of the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC. In appeal i.e. Cri. Appeal No.94 of 2007 preferred by the applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by judgment and order dated 27.10.2010 confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by both these judgment and
2 crapln255510
orders, this application for leave to file appeal has been preferred by the Applicant-State.
2 The prosecution case briefly stated is that complainant PW 1 Laxmi along with her two children and her mother in law were residing in village Shirale Varun, Tal. Shahuwadi Dist. Kolhapur. The accused was also residing in the same village. It is the case of the complainant that in the earlier year at the time of Dassera festival, when she had gone to her field, the accused came to her and held her hand and asked her to accompany him to sugarcane field. The complainant narrated the incident to her mother in law who told her that the accused is a bad person hence, the complainant did not disclose the said incident to anyone. It is further the case of the complainant that on 11.3.2000 after she had dinner and she along with her children and mother in law were sleeping in the house, at about 10.30 p.m. somebody knocked on the door. When she opened the door, she saw the accused standing infront of her house. He told the complainant to come out of her house. She refused to do so. The accused gave her a chit in her hand and he threatened to kill her and went away. In the said chit (Exh.31) it was written that she should comply with the incident which had happened with her on the earlier 'Dassera' festival. On account of the incident,
3 crapln255510
which occurred on 11.3.2000, she lodged an FIR. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
3 I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and orders passed by both the courts below. I have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, I am of the opinion that both the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below do not call for any interference.
4 The complainant PW 1 Laxmi has stated that she along with her two children and her mother in law were residing in village Shirale Varun, Tal. Shahuwadi Dist. Kolhapur. The accused was also residing in the same village. The complainant has further stated that in the earlier year at the time of Dassera festival, when she had gone to her field the accused came to her and held her hand and asked her to accompany him to sugarcane field. The complainant narrated the incident to her mother in law who told her that the accused is a bad person hence, the complainant did not disclose the said incident to anyone. The complainant has stated that on 11.3.2000 after having dinner she along with her children and mother in law were sleeping in the house. At about
4 crapln255510
10.30 p.m. somebody knocked on the door. When she opened the door, she saw the accused standing infront of her house. He told the complainant to come out of her house. She refused to do so, whereupon he gave a chit (Exh. 31) in her hand and went away after threatening her. In the said chit (Exh.31) it was written that she should comply with the incident which had happened with her on the earlier 'Dassera' festival. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR.
5 It is pertinent to note that though the incident had occurred on 11.3.2000, FIR came to be lodged by PW 1 only on 15.3.2000 at 6.35 p.m. No reliable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution regarding delay in lodging FIR. This delay itself raises grave doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution case.
6 The case of PW 1 is that on 11.3.2000 the accused gave her a chit and after threatening her to comply with the contents of the chit, the accused went away. The FIR Exh.18 shows that the complainant produced the said chit on the date of the lodging of the FIR i.e. on 15.3.2000, however, the panchnama Exh. 30 regarding the seizure of chit shows that it was seized by the police on 16.3.2000. Thus, it is doubtful whether the complainant had produced the chit when the FIR
5 crapln255510
Exh. 18 was lodged by her on 15.3.2000 or she produced the same on 16.3.2000 before the police. In such circumstances, evidence of complainant regarding the accused giving the chit to her as alleged by her does not appear to be credible and reliable. It is pertinent to note that the chit has not been sent to the handwriting expert. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the chit was in the handwriting of the accused.
7 In order to support the case of PW 1, PW 5 who is the mother in law of PW 1, has been examined. It is the specific case of the complainant that on 11.3.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. the accused knocked on the door of her house. When she opened the door, she saw the accused infront of the door. The accused asked her to come out of the house. She refused to do so, Whereupon the accused gave a threat to kill her. However, PW 5 does not state that on 11.3.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. when the accused knocked on the door, the accused told the complainant to come out of the house and as she refused to do so, the accused threatened to kill her. In the cross-examination, PW 5 has stated that no talk took place between the complainant and the person who had come to the door of their house. The evidence of PW 5, thus belies the evidence of PW 1.
6 crapln255510
8 The evidence of PW 5 shows that there was knock on the backside door whereas the evidence of the complainant shows that there was a knock on the front door of her house. Besides these inconsistencies, there are various inconsistencies between the evidence of these two witnesses. Both the Courts below have considered all these aspects as well as delay in lodging the FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained. Thereafter, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused which was confirmed in the appeal.
9 The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different plausible view may arise on the evidence. It has been so observed by the Supreme Court in K.Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1428.
10 So also, the Supreme Court in the case of C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the
7 crapln255510
appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. I have already observed that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal.
11 In view of the above, application for leave to file appeal, is
rejected.
[ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in refusing leave to the State to file an appeal against an acquittal.
Whether the contradictions in the prosecution evidence and unexplained delay in FIR justify interfering with the acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶28
K.Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1428 · Who else cites this
C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan NairReferred¶29
C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Ramchandra Hari Patil
V.K.Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
