1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No.96 of 2010 (Abidkhan Ataullakhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order None for Applicant. Smt. T.D. Khade, APP for Respondent. Coram : R.M. Borde, J. Dated : 28 nd July, 2010 None appears for the applicant. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) in Special Case No.3 of 2005. The applicant/accused was prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is alleged that on 13-2-2004, complainant Vandana was present along with her maternal brother Manik and maternal sister Manisha in her house. At about 3 p.m., the accused came to the house of the complainant and told Manisha and Manik to keep watch on the person coming in the house and also gave three bangles each to them. Thereafter the accused closed the door of the house of the complainant and told her to perform sexual intercourse with him. He also threatened her not to disclose this fact to anybody else. The accused is further 2 alleged to have molested the complainant. It further transpires that the complainant threatened the accused to throw chilly powder on his person. As a result of the threat extended by the complainant, the accused ran away. The complainant then narrated the incident to her mother, PW 2 Sonabai. The mother of the complainant thereafter went to the Police Patil to report the incident. As the Police Patil was not available, she visited the house of the Police Patil on the next day and reported the incident to him. Thereafter the Police Patil along with the complainant and her mother went to the Police Station and the complainant lodged the report. Accordingly, the crime, bearing No.21 of 2004, came to be registered in pursuance to the said report. After completing the investigation in the crime, chargesheet came to be presented in the Special Court against the accused. At trial, the accused denied the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as five witnesses. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days on each count. However, the accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. I have perused the judgment and order recorded by the Trial Court. It appears on perusal of the record that the complainant herself deposed about the incident in detail. The evidence of the complainant in respect of the accused entering her 3 house with an intention to commit sexual assault on her has not been shaken on any material point. The evidence led by the complainant is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The mother of the complainant, PW 2 Sonabai, also supported the version of the complainant. There is no reason to discard the testimony of complainant Vandana as regards attempted sexual assault on her. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in recording the finding of guilt against the accused. The reasons recorded by the Trial Court appear to be reasonable and proper. I do not find any reason to cause interference in a well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The revision application is devoid of substance and the same stands rejected. Judge. pdl.