Dismissed

Radhabai W/O Deepak Barde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2016APEAL/212/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the original complainant against the acquittal of multiple accused persons in a Sessions Case involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that the lower court's reasoning based on the evidence was cor

What did the court decide?

The appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Court.

Radhabai W/O Deepak Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 Cr. Appeal 212/2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2015

¶4

Radhabai w/o Deepak Barde,
Age : 30 years, Occupation:Household,
R/o At Post : Kaudgaon,
Taluka : Pathardi,
District : Ahmednagar .. Appellant

¶5

(Ori. Complainant)

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Pathardi Police Station, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar

¶8

2. Jyotiba s/o Jaisingh Athare, Age : 29 years, Occup.: Agril., R/o. Kaudgaon, Tq. Pathardi, District : Ahmednagar

¶9

3. Shekhar s/o Jaisingh Athare, Age : 30 years, Occup. Agril., R/o as above

¶10

4. Yeshwant s/o Bajirao Athare, Age : 41 years, Occup. Agril.,

¶11

R/o as above

¶12

5. Arun s/o Dadattraya Athare, Age : 64 years, Occup.: Agril., R/o as above

¶13

6. Baban s/o Bhaurao Athare, Age : 30 years, Occup.: Agril.,

¶14

R/o as above

¶15

7. Vikas s/o Ramdas Athare, Age : 47 years, Occup.: Agril.,

¶16

R/o as above

¶17

2 Cr. Appeal 212/2015

¶18

8. Sampat s/o Jagannath Athare, Age : 45 years, Occup.: Agril., R/o as above

¶19

9. Kanhu s/o Ranu Dodake, Age : 48 years, Occup.: Agril., R/o as above

¶20

10. Jaysingh s/o Dattatraya Athare, Age : 54 years, Occup.: Agriculture, R/o As above

¶21

11. Kachru s/o Madhav Athare, Age : 47 years, Occup.: Agriculture, R/o as above .. Respondents (Ori.Accused Persons)

¶22

Mr. V.S. Borkar, Advocate for the appellant

¶23

Mr. N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for the respondent/State

¶24

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 08/01/2016

¶25

ORAL ORDER :

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

2.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent

¶28

nos.2 to 11, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar vide judgment and order dated 26/09/2014

¶29

passed in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2013 for the offences
punishable under section 143, 147, 363, 452, 341, 323,
504, 506 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
under section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(iii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

¶30

3 Cr. Appeal 212/2015

¶31

Act, 1989, the present appeal is preferred by the

¶32

original complainant.

¶33

3. The prosecution case in short is as under:-

¶34

.That on 07/10/2011, the complainant alongwith

¶35

her husband and children was in her home at about 8.00
am. At that time, all the present respondent nos.2 to
11 came to her house. They enquired with the
complainant about her husband by abusing him over his
caste as “Bhill”. They alleged that her husband had
committed rape on the girl from their family and took
out the husband of complainant out of the house. They
continued to abuse him. Ultimately, the husband was
taken by them in their bungalow at Kaudgaon. Thereat,
they bet him with fists and kicks blows and put a black
lubricant to his face by tying him to a tree. One of
them took the photographs of the husband and, therefore,
the complaint came to be filed.

¶36

4.Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, in

¶37

all 8 witnesses were examined. The complainant however

¶38

admitted during cross-examination that at 8.00 am in-

¶39

fact, her husband was very well produced by the

¶40

4 Cr. Appeal 212/2015

¶41

relatives of the alleged victim of the rape in the
Police Station. Therefore, the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge has opined that the incident of dragging
the complainant's husband out of the house, blackening
his face at 8.00 am in the village was not possible.
Inter-alia it was also observed by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge that only the photocopy of the caste
certificate was produced on record.

¶42

5.In my view, the reasoning of the learned

¶43

Assistant Sessions Judge is based on the evidence led
before him. In the circumstances, there is no merit in
the appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. Record

¶44

and Proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Court.

¶45

[M.T. JOSHI]
 JUDGE

¶46

arp/

Radhabai W/O Deepak Barde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhabai W/O Deepak Barde v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Baban Gadhave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Dattu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor S/O Guruling Waghnna Vs Anirudha S/O Lalasaheb Patil

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shaikh Yousuf Shaikh Imamoddin

Ravindra Radhakrishna Kakde Vs the State of Maha and Ors.

State of Maha Vs Shivaji Borude and Anr.