1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Alishan Bahadursab Shaikh ...Respondent ..... Shri S.D.Kaldate, advocate for the applicant ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 14 th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.D.Kaldate, advocate for the applicant. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.10.2009, rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur in Special Case No. 3 of 2009, acquitting the respondent 2 (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3 (i)(x) and 3 (i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.10.2009 as well as R.and Ps. with the assistance of Shri Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for the applicant. 4 Accused Alishan Bahadursab Shaikh faced the trial for the above referred charges under Special Case No. 3 of 2009. It is alleged that in the mid night of 18.12.2008 between 12 O’ clock and 1 O’ clock accused used criminal force upon the complainant namely Samabai Shinde, resident of Bhisewagholi, Taluka and District Latur and intended and outraged her modesty by breaking open door of a dwelling house and committed criminal trespass with criminal intent to insult in filthy language and also insulted the complainant and her daughter namely Sonali and saying, “Mangte Maajlet” humiliated them on their Mang community. 5 To substantiate the said charges, prosecution examined 3 in as much as six witnesses as under :- PW1 Samabai w/o Jyotiram Shinde, complainant and victim, who produced the complaint at Exh.16. PW2 Datta Gyanba Adgale, spot panch PW3 Sonali d/o Jyotiba Shinde, one of the victim PW4 Vishnu Tukaram Mandle PW5 Jyotiba Raghu Shinde, father of Sonali PW6 Shankar Ganpatrao Mamilwad, Dy.S.P., investigating officer. 5 After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, learned Trial Judge held that prosecution failed to establish the earlier acquaintance of the voice of accused through evidence of witnesses PW1Samabai and PW3 Sonali, as well as prosecution failed to establish the motive for committal of alleged offences by the accused. Moreover, there is apparent contradiction in the testimonies of PW1 Samabai complainant, PW3 Sonali and PW4 Vishnu in respect of occurrence of the incident, since PW3 Sonali stated that PW4 Vishnu arrived there and drove away the accused 4 from the said place. PW1 Samabai stated in his deposition that PW4 Vishnu caused Alishan to run away from the place. Moreover, learned Trial Judge observed that the only production of certificate by Sarpanch would not be an authenticative peice of evidence and prosecution was under obligation to prove that the accused is not member of Scheduled Caste, but authenticative evidence has not been produced. 6 Besides that, learned Trial Judge observed that the alleged acts of the accused are doubtful in the present case, as well as identity of voice of accused is also doubtful. Thus, apparently, the learned Trial Judge held that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offences and acquitted him. 7 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, it appears that the view adopted by learned Trial Judge is a possible view to be adopted after appreciating the evidence and no perversity is found therein and reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge for acquitting the accused cannot be faulted with. 8 In the result, present application being devoid of any 5 substance stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. R. and Ps. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap159.10