..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.454 OF 2008 Mrs.Shahnaz Rehman Shaikh. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Manish Bohra, Adv. a/w. Mr.Rishi Bhuta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Section 224 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI.. The appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Hence this Revision. 3. The petitioner has been convicted under section 224 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was in police custody in C.R. No.167 of 2004 of Versova police station. The said case was under Section 380 ..(2).. of IPC. On 8.10.2004 the petitioner was detained in police lock-up of Santacruz police station in relation to C.R. No.167 of 2004. On the said day, the applicant informed police constable PW-1 Saili Kulkarni that she wanted to go to bathroom. Hence PW-1 Saili Kulkarni took her to bathroom. When the petitioner went inside, PW-1 Saili Kulkarni remained outside the bathroom waiting for the petitioner to come out. However even after more than ten minutes had lapsed the petitioner did not come out of bathroom, hence PW-1 Saili Kulkarni suspected that something was amiss. PW-1 Saili Kulkarni knocked on the door of the bath room, but, there was no response and she could only hear the noise of flowing water. Thereafter it was found that the petitioner had escaped from the said bathroom through a broken window. Hence FIR came to be lodged. Evidence of PW-1 Saili Kulkarni enumerates all the above facts. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 Saili Kulkarni. 4. Both the Courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record. On perusal of both the judgments, I find no infirmity therein. Hence, the Revision Application is rejected. ..(3).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)