1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 43 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o Bhagoji Gavli, Aged 46 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Sarola, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. S.K. Adkine, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 8th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed against the concurrent findings of the Court below that the applicant had committed offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Initially the applicant was charged under Sections 354, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident of molestation and criminal assault took place on 2nd November, 2004, at about 03.00 p.m. in an agricultural field. The complainant is related to the applicant being his cousin’s wife. There was a pending dispute between these two families over a boundary between the lands belonging to them. The complainant was alone when the incident took place. She said, she was cutting grass in her field when the applicant came. He first quarreled with her and then caught her hand with an intention to outrage her modesty. She said, he even dragged her with an intention to take her away. She said, she shouted, and due to her shouting, the prosecution witnesses No. 2 and others had come there. However, prosecution witness No.2, her mother-in-law 2 stated that the prosecution witness No.1, the complainant, at that time had come to her shouting and narrated the incident to her, and thereafter, she said, she and her husband went to the spot where the applicant was still there and there occurred quarrel between them. The Courts below believed the case of the prosecution. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant tried to suggest that the appreciation of the evidence on record is totally inappropriate and grossly perversed. He said, the incident as narrated could not have happened in natural course. He said, if at all the applicant intended to seduce the complainant, he would not have quarreled with her initially. This could have enraged the complainant and she would not have accepted his sexual advances thereafter. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant thereafter suggested that if the prosecution witness No.2 came to the spot after the incident was over, there was sufficient time for the applicant to vanish from the scene of occurrence. He would not have waited for the witnesses to come to confront him about the incident. He said, these two discrepancies in the case would support the applicant’s case that this was a false complaint lodged on account of previous enmities between the two families. I am afraid, these submission are on facts and the learned Magistrate who had an occasion to see the complainant and the prosecution witness No.2 in his Court giving depositions had believed their versions. In addition to that, he also observed that on account of a dispute over boundary, a woman, who is otherwise chaste, would not make an allegation of this nature against her adversary. Both the Courts below thus rejected the defence. No doubt, this is a case where there is word of the prosecution witnesses against the word of the applicant. I am not inclined to re- appreciate the evidence which is already taken into account for recording conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code of 3 the applicant. There is no illegality found in the impugned Judgment and orders. The revision should therefore fail. The Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. Issue warrant of arrest against the applicant. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra/43/10