abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 1999 Shekhar Vasant Aughade .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for the applicant. Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 8TH JANUARY 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th August 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli dismissing the appeal of the revision applicant and confirming the conviction and sentence of the revision applicant imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vita under sections 354, 452 and 323 of the I.P.C. - 2 - 3. The prosecution case is that at the relevant time, the prosecutrix Lata Dada Yadav (P.W.2) was residing in village Deorashtre with her father. She was married to Dada Yadav just about a fortnight before the alleged incident. At the relevant time, her husband Dada Yadav was residing in Mumbai for service and was not present in the house. On 28th March 1991 at about 8 p.m., the prosecutrix and her father in law had just finished their dinner and the prosecutrix was in the sopa (varandah) of their house. There was no electric light in the house. While the prosecutrix was engaged in keeping the articles and utensils in the inner room, the revision applicant suddenly came inside, pulled hand of the prosecutrix and kept his one hand on her mouth and fell her down. He sat on her chest and squeezed her breasts. As the prosecutrix raised shouts, the revision applicant delivered hand blows on her face. In the scuffle, she suffered injuries below her right ear and below her left eye. In the scuffle, the bangles of the prosecutrix broke causing injuries to her left hand. The blouse of the prosecutrix was also torn. On hearing the shouts, the father-in-law of the prosecutrix, who had weak eye sight and also hard of hearing, rushed to the spot. As people from the neighbourhood started gathering, the revision applicant ran away. In the night as vehicle was not available, the prosecutrix - 3 - could not immediately go to the police station for filing the report. However, immediately on the next day morning she lodged an FIR against the revision applicant and the Crime No.59/1991 was registered. Investigation was carried out by Police Head Constable Baburao Nikam. Spot panchanama was made and the pant and slippers left by the revision applicant at the spot as well as the torn blouse of the prosecutrix were seized. She was sent for medical examination. Dr. Avadhoot Bapat, who was examined as P.W.5, examined the prosecutrix and found six injuries on her person. He issued a medical certificate which is at Exhibit-21. On completion of the investigation, the police charge sheeted the revision applicant. 4. The revision applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. He denied the prosecution evidence as totally false and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case because the husband of the prosecutrix and he belonged to the rival political groups. He also raised a plea of alibi and examined one Shivaji Yadav to prove that he was not present at the spot of incident at the relevant time. 5. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, held that the incident as alleged by the prosecutrix had - 4 - in fact taken place as alleged on 28th March 1991. He further held that the revision applicant committed the offence of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix and also committed the offence punishable under section 452 of the I.P.C. by entering the house of the prosecutrix with an intention of molesting her. The learned Magistrate rejected the plea of alibi put up by the revision applicant and convicted the revision applicant of the offences under sections 354, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.1000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate, the revision applicant filed an appeal in the Sessions Court. After hearing and after careful examination of the evidence, the learned Additional sessions Judge agreed with the findings reached by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. That judgment is impugned in this revision application. 7. Learned counsel for the revision applicant firstly submitted that the revision applicant has been falsely implicated because he belongs to a politically rival political group as that of the husband of the prosecutrix. The evidence of the prosecutrix was not believable. She had not explained how the revision - 5 - applicant entered the house at 8.00 p.m. and therefore she should be disbelieved. He further submitted that in the FIR, the prosecutrix had not mentioned about the presence of her brother Jagannath but at the stage of evidence she has mentioned his presence. The court should have therefore disbelieved that Jagannath was present at the spot and discarded his evidence. If the evidence of Jagannath is discarded, there was no corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix and it was unsafe to convict the revision applicant on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 8. It is true that in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, she has not mentioned the presence of Jagannath. The learned Sessions Judge in para 13 of his judgment has also come to the conclusion that Jagannath was not present at the spot at the time of the incident but arrived subsequently after hearing shouts of Lata. In view of this finding, it has to be held that Jagannath was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and he might have arrived at the spot after hearing the shouts of Lata. He might and more probably not have seen the revision applicant running away from the spot as stated by himself in his deposition. The evidence of Jagannath therefore has to be discarded. 9. The maximum "falses in uno falsesus in omnibus" - 6 - does not apply to criminal trials. The prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved in toto because of the small improvement attempted to be made by her by attributing presence of Jagannath at the time of the incident. At the most, her evidence would have to be examined with caution and require corroboration. The prosecutrix Lata has stated on oath that the revision applicant entered her house, held her hand, fell her down and squeezed her breasts. When she raised shouts, he assaulted her which resulted into several injuries on her person. The evidence of the medical officer P.W.5 Dr.Bapat corroborates the evidence of Lata regarding injuries caused to her. It is true that out of the 6 injuries noted by Dr.Bapat, 3 injuries can be caused by self-infliction as admitted by him. However, he has categorically denied that one of the injuries could be caused by self-infliction. The injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, one of whom could not be caused by self-infliction, corroborate her version to the extent of assault inside the house. Hence the offence under section 452 is clearly proved. 10. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated because the husband of the prosecutrix belongs to a rival political group than that of the applicant cannot be accepted. It must be borne in mind that the - 7 - prosecutrix was very recently married. Her marriage had taken place only 15 days before the incident. She was a young woman aged about 20 years. It is unbelievable that a young woman of 20 years recently married would go to the extent of alleging her own molestation. It must also be noted that the husband of the prosecutrix was admittedly not present at the time of the incident and was far away at Mumbai. The motive of false implication suggested is too far fetched to deserve any credit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The plea of alibi was not seriously pressed before me. The defence witness Mr. Shivaji Yadav has stated that the applicant was present at his house between 5.00 and 10.00 p.m. on the relevant day for hair cutting ceremony of his child. However, in the cross examination, he admitted that at 8.00 p.m. he himself had gone to the house of the prosecutrix on hearing commotion. The house of the prosecutrix was just about 100 feet away from his house. It was clearly possible for the revision applicant to go to the house of the prosecutrix at 8.00 p.m. without being noticed by Shivaji. It is not the case of Shivaji Yadav that he was constantly watching the revision applicant and constantly monitoring his presence in the house. It is clearly possible that the revision applicant went to the house of the prosecutrix which was just 100 feet away - 8 - and return within few minutes of the incident when his absence could not be noted by Shivaji Yadav. 12. No other point was urged before me. 13. In the circumstances, I see no reason to take a view different than the view concurrently taken by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. The applicant shall surrender before the concerned court within 2 weeks and undergo the remaining sentence. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)