1 cra 114-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2011 Mr.Vishnu Pandurang Nichite ...Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Ajit R. Pitale for the Applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : APRIL 8, 2011 P.C :- 1 Heard. Perused the application. The applicant-accused was tried for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 392, 354, 504, 506 IPC in Regular Criminal Case No.131/1999 by the JMFC, Shahapur and the trial ended in conviction of the accused under Sections 354 of IPC, 1860. Criminal Appeal No.38/2002 preferred against his conviction before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, failed and the conviction was upheld. 2 cra 114-2011 2 Learned Advocate Mr.Pitale for the applicant submits that this acquittal for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 504, 506 ought to have resulted in his acquittal under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 for the reason that there was no intention to commit the offence under Section 354 of IPC, 1860, and more particularly so, for the reason that the offences are not distinct. A glance at the Penal Code clearly reveals that the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, 1860 falls under the Chapter XVI relating to the offences affecting the human body and the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is found in the chapter XVII relating to the offences against the property. Needless to state that they are distinct offences having distinct features. The courts below i.e. the trial court and the appellate court have successively believed the evidence relating to the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, 1860. The appellate court at para 10 of its judgment dealt with the relevant submissions with 3 cra 114-2011 the following observations :- Considering the aforesaid counter submissions, the question arises that when accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 392, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, whether conviction under Section 354 of the I.P.C. would sustain? As per the evidence of the complainant Vandana Dinkar P.W.1, who is the victim and sole witness to the incident. At about 8.30 p.m., after alighting at Asangaon Railway Station, she was proceeding to her village by walk. At that time, there was darkness on the road. When she reached near village Walshet, suddenly accused came from her backside and embarrassed her. She identified and requested him that, he should not behave in such manner and got escaped from his clutches and ran to the house. After going to the house, it came to her knowledge that in scuffle, her gold chain and wrist watch were lost. Though her evidence is contrary to the First Information Report, regarding theft of her gold chain and wrist watch, after embarrassing her, her evidence on oath is crystal clear that the intention of appellant/accused was not to rob her. Her evidence in respect of losing her gold chain and wrist watch when accused tried to over powered her with intention to outrage her modesty is not at all shattered. Therefore, merely because 4 cra 114-2011 the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 392, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. will not sustain. 3 No illegality, impropriety or incorrectness- much less perversity, can be seen in the judgments under scrutiny. The Criminal Revision Application, therefore, is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. (U.D. SALVI, J.)