Dismissed¶16

Rosita Fernandes v. State Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2025CRIR/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision application dismissed; concurrent findings of acquittal upheld; no perversity in Magistrate's or Appellate Court's findings; no interference in revisional jurisdiction; charges under IPC Sections 341, 427 and 380; Additional Sessions Court Margao appeals 31/2021 and 32/2021; Criminal Cases 18/S/2018 and 5/S/IPC/2018; complainant-wife versus accused-husband; Goa; decision dated 12th August, 2025; single-judge coram Valmiki Menezes.

What did the court decide?

The Judgments of acquittal rendered by the Magistrate in both the criminal complaints cannot be termed as being based upon any finding that is perverse or a finding contrary to the evidence on record. ¶15

Rosita Fernandes Vs State Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Court, Margao) suffer from perversity or are contrary to the evidence, so as to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

¶15

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The learned Magistrate considered the evidence in great detail in both cases and arrived at the conclusion that neither of the charges was proved, and the Appellate Court reconsidered the evidence and confirmed the Magistrate's findings.

¶15

Key takeaways

No perversity can be found in the findings arrived at either by the Magistrate or by the Appellate Court, and no case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.), 12th August, 2025 — Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 34 and 35 of 2022: The applicant, original Complainant and wife of the Accused (Respondent No.2), challenged two orders dated 17.12.2021 of the Additional Sessions Court, Margao in Criminal Appeal Nos.31/2021 and 32/2021, whereby her husband's acquittals in Criminal Case No.18/S/2018 (charge under Section 341 IPC) and Criminal Case No.5/S/IPC/2018 (charges under Sections 427 and 380 IPC) were confirmed. Held: the Magistrate's judgments of acquittal were neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record; the Magistrate had considered the evidence in great detail and found neither charge proved, and the Appellate Court reconsidered the evidence and confirmed those findings. No case was made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Both revision applications dismissed with no costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-GOA:1488

¶2

CRIR 34 of 2022

¶3

Jose

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2022

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2022 ROSITA FERNANDES ... APPLICANT Versus STATE THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2022 ROSITA FERNANDES ... APPLICANT Versus STATE THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS

¶6

Ms. Vidhati Shetye, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Shailendra G. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. Mr. Adarsh Valavolkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶7

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶8

DATED :- 12th August, 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Both these revisions arise from two orders dated 17.12.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Margao in Criminal Appeal Nos.31/2021 and 32/2021. The Petitioner is the original Complainant and the wife of the Accused, Respondent No.2 herein. By the two orders passed in the appeals by the Sessions Court, the Judgments and Orders of acquittal in two Criminal Cases Nos. 18/S/2018 and

Page 1 of 2

12th August, 2025

CRIR 34 of 2022

5/S/IPC/2018 filed by the Complainant against the Respondent No.2 have been confirmed.

¶15

After perusing the two Judgments challenged herein in both these revision applications, the Judgments of acquittal rendered by the Magistrate in both the criminal complaints cannot be termed as being based upon any finding that is perverse or a finding contrary to the evidence on record. In Criminal Case No.18/S/2018, the Accused was charged of the offence under Section 341 IPC while in Criminal Case No.5/S/IPC/2018, the Accused was charged under Section 427 and 380 of IPC. In both these cases, the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence in great detail, and arrived at the conclusion that neither of the charges have been proved. In an appeal filed by the Complainant before the Sessions Court against both orders of the Magistrate, the Appellate Court has reconsidered the evidence and confirmed the findings arrived at by the Magistrate. No perversity can be found in the findings arrived at, either by the Magistrate or by the Appellate Court in these cases. No case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶16

Revision applications stand dismissed. No costs.

¶17

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶18

Signed by: JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 12/08/2025 16:45:35

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

12th August, 2025

Rosita Fernandes v. State Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosita Fernandes v. State Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mindtech Compusoft Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Auth Rep Sajive Bhatia Vs State of Goa Thr Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Krutik Chodankar Vs State of Goa, as Rep. by Officer in Charge/ Police Inspector, Anjuna Police Station

Sitaram Gaonkar, Presently Lodged in Colvale Jail Thr. His Sister Shahsikala Gaonkar Vs State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and 2 Ors.

Ajju C.S., Managing Director Ajjus Group of Companies Vs Mahesh Parab

Communidade of Assagao, Rep. by Its Attorney Nelson J. Fernandes Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Police Inspector, Mapusa Police Station and Anr.

Rosita Fernandes Vs State Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr.