Dismissed¶33

Shrikrushna S/O Pundalikrao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps City Kotwali Amravti

Bombay HC20 Sept 2025REVN/172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Outrage of modesty, Section 509 IPC, incident in bus dated 30.10.2016 — Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench dismisses Criminal Revision Application No.172 of 2024 against conviction confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.146/2018; discrepancy in eyewitnesses' account of seating position and non-conducting of test identification parade held non-fatal; prompt FIR and immediate custody with help of PW-6 proved case beyond reasonable doubt; no specific stand in Section 313 CrPC statement; concurrent findings not disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Court affirmed that the applicant committed the act on 30.10.2016 in the bus which resulted in outraging the modesty of PW-2 (victim), and that PW-2 categorically narrated the incident. ¶29

Shrikrushna S/O Pundalikrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps City Kotwali Amravti — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution story was believable notwithstanding the discrepancy between PW-2 (victim) and PW-3 as to where the applicant was sitting in the bus (front seat versus backside). +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Court affirmed that the applicant committed the act on 30.10.2016 in the bus which resulted in outraging the modesty of PW-2 (victim), and that PW-2 categorically narrated the incident.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The discrepancy between PW-2 and PW-3 does not render the prosecution story unbelievable: nothing was brought on record to show earlier enmity between the applicant and PW-3 or PW-2, and the parties being unknown to each other, false implication was not material.

¶29

Key takeaways

Non-conducting of test identification parade is not fatal: the procedure is required to be followed only where the Investigation Officer forms an opinion that it may go to the root of the matter; here the incident of 30.10.2016 and the depositions of PW-2 and PW-3 recorded on 05.09.2017 were within about a year, and no question was put in cross-examination on non-conducting of the parade.ratio¶29
The prompt lodgment of the First Information Report and the fact that the applicant was taken into custody immediately after the incident with the help of PW-6, a Police Officer, clearly show that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, negativing the contention of mistaken identity.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Rajnish R. Vyas, J., 20.09.2025) — Criminal Revision Application No.172 of 2024 dismissed. The applicant, convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in Regular Criminal Case No.323/2016 under Section 509 IPC (one year's imprisonment and fine), whose Criminal Appeal No.146/2018 was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, sought revision. Held: (i) the difference between PW-2 (victim) and PW-3 as to the seat occupied by the applicant in the bus did not make the prosecution story unbelievable; PW-2 categorically narrated the incident, and there being no enmity — the parties being unknown to each other — false implication was not material; (ii) non-conducting of test identification parade is not fatal, the procedure being required only where the Investigation Officer forms an opinion that it may go to the root of the matter; the depositions were recorded on 05.09.2017, within about a year of the 30.10.2016 incident, and no cross-examination question was put on the point; (iii) the prompt FIR (Exhibit 10, lodged the same day within few hours) and the applicant's immediate apprehension with the help of PW-6, a Police Officer, showed the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt; (iv) in the Section 313 CrPC statement the applicant took no specific stand, replying most questions as false; (v) revisional powers operate only for perversity of finding or admission of inadmissible evidence etc., and concurrent findings of the trial and appellate Courts were not disturbed.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9536

¶2

5.revn172.2024jud.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 172 OF 2024

¶5

Shrikrushna s/o Pundalikrao Jadhav Aged about 40 years, Occ.: Labour, R/o. Dhamori Kasba, ... Applicant Tq. Bhatkuli, Dist. Amravati

¶6

Versus State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, ... Non-applicant Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati.

¶7

Mr. Siddhant I. Ghatte, Advocate for applicant. Mr. H.D. Marathe, APP for non-applicant/State.

¶8

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. DATE : 20.09.2025.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶10

Application is taken for final hearing with the consent of both the learned counsels for the parties.

¶11

(2) The applicant is the original accused. He has challenged order convicting him for commission of offences punishable under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code directing him to suffer imprisonment for one year so also to pay the amount of fine, by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

¶12

Amravati in Regular Criminal Case No.323/2016.

¶13

PAGE 1 OF 5

¶14

5.revn172.2024jud.odt

¶15

(3) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicant preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.146/2018. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, on reconsideration of evidence, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision before this Court.

¶16

(4) I have considered the entire material on record while deciding the criminal revision application. Needless to mention the revisional powers can be exercised when there is perversity in finding, admission of inadmissible evidence etc.

¶17

(5) I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Ghatte, for the

¶18

applicant and learned APP Mr. Marathe, for the non-applicant/State.

¶19

(6) Mr. Ghatte, learned counsel for the applicant has brought to my notice testimony of PW-2, who is victim. According to PW-2-victim, on 30.10.2016 when she was travelling in a bus, the applicant was also travelling in the same bus. The applicant, who was not known to victim was sitting on the front seat changed his position and sat on front seat. He, thereafter, outraged the modesty by unzipping his pant and showing his private part.

¶20

PAGE 2 OF 5

¶21

5.revn172.2024jud.odt

¶22

(7) PW-3-Manisha, is the friend of PW-2, who has also

¶23

supported the case of PW-2/victim. According to both PW-2 and PW-3, when modesty of PW-2 was outraged, both of them, caught hold of the applicant and with the help of PW-6, the applicant was taken into custody. The incident was immediately reported to the Police authorities and consequently, on the same day within few hours First Information Report (Exhibit 10) was lodged.

¶24

(8) According to Mr. Ghatte, learned counsel for applicant, story advanced by the prosecution is not believable since PW-2 and PW-3 are advancing two different stories. In order to supports his case, he points out that according to PW-3, the applicant was sitting on the backside, whereas according to the PW-2, applicant was sitting on front seat. Mr. Ghatte, further states that the applicant and the victim were not known to each other and non-conducting of test identification parade goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the applicant is liable to be acquitted. He further says that both the Courts have not appreciated evidence on record in proper manner and therefore, revision needs to be allowed.

¶25

(9) Per contra, Mr. Marathe, learned APP for the State has supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the ingredients of Section 509 of Indian Penal Code were duly made out by testimony of PW-2,

¶26

PAGE 3 OF 5

¶27

5.revn172.2024jud.odt

¶28

PW-3 and PW-6. According to him, since there are concurrent finding of facts while exercising revisional jurisdiction, Court may not disturb the findings rendered by the trial Court as well as appellate Court.

¶29

(10) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties. Incident had taken place on 30.10.2016 when the informant, PW-2 and PW3, so also the applicant were travelling in the bus. The applicant unfortunately did the act narrated above which resulted into outraging the modesty of PW-2-victim. PW-2 has categorically narrated the incident. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was earlier enmity between the applicant and PW-3, or PW-2 and therefore there was any possibility of false implication. Both were unknown to each other and therefore, the question of false implication would not be material. So far as non-conducting of test identification parade is concerned, it can be said that the said procedure is required to be followed where the Investigation Officer forms an opinion that it may go to the root of the matter. In the instant case, incident had taken place on 30.10.2016 and the depositions of PW-2 and PW-3 were recorded on 05.09.2017. Thus, it is hardly a period of one year which has lapsed. Even otherwise no question was put to the witnesses in cross-examination for non-conducting test identification parade. If the line of cross-examination is seen, it would be clear

¶30

PAGE 4 OF 5

¶31

5.revn172.2024jud.odt

¶32

that the applicant has contended that it may be a case of mistaken identity. The prompt lodgment of First Information Report so also the fact that applicant was taken in custody immediately after incident with the help of PW-6, who is the Police Officer, clearly shows that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further necessary to mention here that though opportunity was given to the applicant to explain the case, by way of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant did not take any specific stand but answered most of the questions by replying it as false. Had there been any genuine explanation, the Courts below could have taken the same into consideration.

¶33

(11) In view of the observations made above, there is absolutely no case made out which requires interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The criminal revision application, is thus, dismissed.

¶34

[RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.]

¶35

Prity

¶36

PAGE 5 OF 5

Shrikrushna S/O Pundalikrao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps City Kotwali Amravti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikrushna S/O Pundalikrao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps City Kotwali Amravti

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

Kiran Rajebhau Sherekar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailas Vinayakrao Shirsath and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Yadav Bandabhoi Battalwad vs the State of Maharashtrta

Ujwala Ritesh Gandhare Vs Mrs Swati Rajendra Jaiswal

Navalkishore Gokulchand Muraka Vs Vikas Somprakash Muraka

Vijay Pusaramji Chandak and 5 Others Vs Canara Bank Thr.Its Principal at Bangalore Branch Offices Inter Alia at Amravati Thr.Branch Manager