( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 282 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Sillod Rural District Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS Alkabai Digambar Jagtap, R/o Sillod, District Aurangabad. RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for the appellant/State, assisted by Mr. M.D. Shinde, advocate. Smt. Vaishali Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th October, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned APP and and learned counsel. 2. Leave to appeal is granted. 3. The appeal is taken up for final hearing and is ( 2 ) heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that complainant (PW1 Madhav) is Head Master of Zilla Parishad High School, Warud. He was in his chamber on 10th June, 2002. He was engaged in some official work when the respondent (accused) entered his chamber at about 11.00 a.m. She was then attached to the same High School as an Assistant Teacher. She demanded for muster roll as she wanted to put her signature on the same. While she was signing the muster roll, he asked her as to why she came late by about two (2) hours. Instead of explaining for the delay, she felt insulted and started abusing him. She took out her chappal and threw it towards him. The chapal hit his shoulder. He lodged a report at the Police Station on next day after consultation with the superior officer. The respondent alongwith two (2) other accused were chargesheeted and were tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sillod, for offences punishable under section 353, 332, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. The charge against the other two (2) accused was ( 3 ) that they also abused complainant (PW1 Madhav) at the relevant time. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all six (6) witnesses in support of its case. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the charge was not duly proved. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that version of PW1 Madhav (complainant) did not receive appropriate corroboration and, therefore, his solitary version could not be safely relied upon. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent alongwith the other two (2) accused persons. 6. Mrs. Gondhalekar, learned APP, would submit that the impugned judgement of acquittal is unsustainable in as much as there was no reason to discard the testimony of PW1 Madhav. She would point out that testimony of PW Madhav stands partly corroborated on account of version of PW6 Pramod though the latter was declared as hostile witness. She contended that the impugned judgement is erroneous because the delay has been wrongly interpreted so as to dislodge the testimony ( 4 ) of PW1 Madhav (complainant) though the same is duly explained. As against this, Smt. Vaishali Deshmukh, learned advocate, supports the impugned judgements. 7. On consideration of the material placed on record and the impugned judgement, it may be gathered that the testimony of PW1 Madhav is discarded only for the reason that there was delay in filing of the complaint (FIR) (Exh-23) and his version has not been fully corroborated by the other witnesses. The impugned judgement reveals lack of serious attempt to evaluate the evidence as required under the law. The learned Judicial Magistrate seems to have discarded the version of PW1 Madhav without much reasons. The testimony of PW Madhav categorically shows that he was working in his chamber (office) at the relevant time. His version further categorically shows that he orally asked to the respondent (accused) for reason of coming late. He being Head Master, it was his duty to inquire whether the respondent had any genuine reason to offer for coming late to the school. He deposed that the respondent (accused) immediately started abusing him and ( 5 ) threw a chappal at him which had hit his shoulder. He admittedly did not ask her to sign the later muster register. That does not destroy the core of his version. He admitted that his residential house is situated behind the Rural Police Station at Sillod. It was suggested to him that he was demanding Rs. 500/- p.m. from the respondent. He denied such suggestion. There is absolutely no material on record to infer any kind of ill-will nurtured by him against the respondent. Mere vague suggestion that he was demanding Rs. 500/- p.m. from the respondent is of no avail at all. In fact, the core of his testimony has remained unimpeached notwithstanding the cross-examination directed against him. It appears that he firstly informed the incident to his superior officer and thereafter, reported the matter to the police. Otherwise, he could have been manipulated false complaint showing that the incident had occurred on the day he lodged the FIR. His explanation appears to be quite natural. His version corroborates the recitals of the FIR (Exh-23). 8. Though PW3 Raghunath, PW4 Balaji, PW5 Ramesh ( 6 ) and PW6 Pramod have been declared hostile, yet, version of PW Pramod partly corroborates the case of the prosecution. It is well settled that version of a hostile witness need not be discarded in toto. A part of the version of such a hostile witness, if is found to be true one, may be accepted. The principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not applicable to the Indian jurisprudence. The version of PW Pramod purports to show that he was the staff member of the Zilla Parishad Primary School at the relevant time and was present outside the partition of the chamber of the Head Master. He heard conversation between the respondent and PW1 Madhav, the Head Master and, therefore, rushed to the place. He noticed that the respondent was holding a chappal in her hand whereas PW Madhav was standing on other side of the table. His version also shows that the incident occurred at 11 a.m. whereas the first shift of the school had commenced at 9 a.m. Obviously, the respondent had come late to the school by about two (2) hours. This witness suppressed the remaining part of the prosecution story in so far as pelting of the chappal by the respondent towards PW Madhav is ( 7 ) concerned. He admits that the respondent had sought muster roll and then the Head Master had asked her as to why she became late by two hours. He further admits that the respondent asked the Head Master as to who he was and she did not know him. There is no substantial reason coming forth to dislodge his version to the extent of the occurrence which took place in the relevant morning in the premises of chamber (office) of PW Madhav. 9. The testimony of PW2 Kisan purports to show that spot panchanama (Exh-25) was drawn on 12-06-2002. The recitals of the spot panchanama would show that the chamber of the Head Master is a small space of 12 feet x 25 feet which is segregated by means of a wooden partition. The mere fact that there was delay in filing of the report with the police cannot be sufficient ground to discard the otherwise reliable version of PW Madhav. It need not be reiterated that he had no enmity with the respondent. There was no immediate cause for him to falsely frame her in such a case. Considering these aspects of the matter, it will have to be said ( 8 ) that the impugned judgement rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. 10. For the reasons aforestated, I deem it proper to allow the appeal. It may be, however, gathered that the facts proved by the prosecution would lead to the conviction of the respondent for offence punishable only under section 353 of the I.P. Code. For, there is no medical corroboration to the version of PW Madhav nor he spelt out the abuses or threats given by the respondent. It is proved that he was engaged in doing the official work and was disturbed because of the conduct of the respondent. He was found standing when she had held a chappal in her hand. In other words, he had to give up the writing work at the relevant time. Considering the fact that the respondent is a female and incident occurred in the year 2002, I am inclined to take lenient view in so far as sentence is concerned. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement is partly set aside and the ( 9 ) respondent is convicted for offence punishable under section 353 of the I.P. Code. She is sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month. The amount shall be deposited within three (3) weeks before the trial Court and the sentence till rising of the Court shall be undergone before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The compliance report to be forwarded to this Court. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapl282-04