1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REV. APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2008 Smt.Pushpa Dive .. Applicant Versus Vasant Patil and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Dave i/b. N.N.Vaishnawa & Co. for applicant Mr.Rane for respondent No.1 Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C.: 1] Heard learned Counsel for parties. The applicant is the original complainant. She filed a F.I.R. which led to the special criminal case No. 3536 of 2007 being filed in the Court of Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Bhiwandi. The allegation was that the first respondent accused had outraged her modesty on 5th October 2001 at about 7.45 a.m. at a remand home Bhiwandi in kitchen room. The applicant is working at the said remand home so also accused. The complaint is that the accused opened the gate of the remand home so as to enable the applicant to enter in and, thereafter, report for duty on 5th 2 October 2001. When she entered the kitchen and was preparing the break-fast for the children, the incident has allegedly taken place. On this complaint, the police recorded statement and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed, charge was framed, the matter was tried and the accused was convicted by the concerned Magistrate and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.500 and in default further simple imprisonment for fifteen days. 2] This judgement and order was delivered on 27th January 2004 against which the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2004 in the District Court, Thane. The District and Sessions Judge heard parties and after perusing the entire record came to a conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution does not explain certain vital aspects. Firstly, there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant – applicant before me, had reported for duty on Friday, 5th October 2001 i.e. the date of incident. The muster roll is not seized and it is not produced. Even the extract of the muster roll is not produced. There are other staff members employed at the remand home. There are boys and girls residing therein. However, when the complainant’s version of the incident has been belied by her statement in the cross examination that 3 the incident occurred on Friday, 5th October 2001 and she is on leave on Friday, then, the learned Judge of the Appellate Court cannot be faulted for insisting upon reliable and cogent material. He has referred to the absence of a sketch of the remand home, no location plan being produced, statement of guards, particularly two lady guards being not recorded. The admissions made in the cross examination by the applicant coupled with the absence of this vital material has led to the appellate court interfering with the order of conviction and sentence and acquitting the accused. Further, the Superintendent of the Remand Home was examined as a witness. His deposition is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. He asserted that the applicant complained to him about the incident in writing but in his cross he admitted that there is no written complaint. 3] In the revisional jurisdiction, it will not be possible for me to re- appraise and re-appreciate the evidence on record. The copies of the depositions recorded at the trial have been placed before me and having perused them, I am satisfied that the appellate court did not commit any error apparent or perversity while reversing the judgement of the Trial Court. 4 4] The applicant’s Counsel would urge that the charge was serious and concerns the modesty of a woman. The lower Appellate Court should have dealt with the matter in a manner ensuring that minor contradictions in the Testimony and deposition of witnesses does not prejudice the prosecution case. I am afraid that this contention is not well founded. The learned Judge was aware of this aspect and has scrutinised the entire material properly and meticulously. There is no infirmity in his approach. On the other hand, it must also be noted that sometimes such complaints are made making wild and false allegations. (See A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 643 – Pandurang S. Bhagwat Vs. State of Maharashtra). 5] In such circumstances, when the appellate court has performed its duty in law and I am satisfied that its conclusion is in consonance with the materials produced, then, there is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the appellate court. Consequently, the revision application fails and is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)