( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.67 of 2003. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.67 of 2003. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.67 of 2003. Ravindra Shantaram Yadav ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Ajit R. Pitale i/b P.M. Pradhan, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 03.06.2008. DATED : 03.06.2008. DATED : 03.06.2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Perused the petition. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 18 of 2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri,(lower Appellate Court) dismissing the appeal and confirming conviction in Summary Case No. 407 of 2002 passed by the ( 2 ) Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ratnagiri (Trial Court)for the offence punishable under Sections 451,354 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Both the Advocates appearing for the respective parties took me through the evidence on record. 4. Both the Courts below have found that the relation between the accused-applicant and the complainant-prosecutrix were strained. The present applicant-accused and the complainant-prosecutrix are related to each other. 5. Statements of two witnesses i.e. the complainant-prosecutrix and her grand-mother were relied upon by the lower Appellate Court to sustain the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. If their evidence is considered, keeping in mind the strained relation between the family of the complainant-prosecutrix conviction of the accused-applicant cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) 6. The prosecutrix has stated that her grand mother gave two stick blows to accused-Ravindra (present applicant) when he was dragging the complainant from kitchen to another room, whereas, mother of the complainant Sitabai does not say anything about two stick blows having been given by the grand-mother of the complainant to the applicant-accused. The evidence of P.W. 3 Sitabai in this behalf is completely silent. The evidence of grand-mother that she gave repeated blow also seems to be an exaggerated one which is relied upon by the Trial Court. The evidence brought on record does not inspire judicial confidence. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Accused-applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 354, 451 of the I.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused-applicant stand cancelled. Fine amount if any deposited by the applicant-accused be refunded to him. ( 4 ) JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.