{1} Cri. Revision No.244/2008 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.244 OF 2008 Suresh Gulbchand Songole, APPLICANT Age-40 years, Occ-Agriculturist, R/o Shirur Anantpal, Tq-Shirur Anantpal Dist-Latur VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 8 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The applicant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable u/s 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 months on each count, by Second JMFC, Nilanga in STCC No.75/2003 and confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nilnga in Criminal Appeal No.7/2008, vide {2} Cri. Revision No.244/2008 judgment dated 17.11.2008, by the present criminal revision application, questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this revision, may briefly be stated thus- The complainant, Vijayabai, who was a divorcee and was residing along with her parents, is real sister of the applicant. She alleged that her father was holding 10 Acres of ancestral land and her mother was holding 12 Acres of land. Her father expired 20 years back and she is residing with her parents since last 30 years. After the demise of her father, her three brothers partitioned the property amongst themselves. Therefore, she filed a suit for partition in the property of her parents. It appears that on 13.12.2002, while she was to the house of one of her acquaintances for dinner, at that time the applicant and her other three brothers came there, caught hold of her and dragged her out of the said house and forced her to sit in a auto and was taken to her house where she was confined in a room, which was latched from outside. She further alleged that after 2/4 days the applicant took her out of the room and thereafter, she lodged the complaint against the applicant and others on 19.12.2002 with Shirur Anantpal police station. Pursuant to which an offence at Crime No. 353/2002 came to be registered against the accused u/s 323, 342, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the {3} Cri. Revision No.244/2008 investigation, charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Nilanga and the case was numbered as STCC No.75/2003. 4. Record shows that prosecution, in support of its case, had examined in all 3 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Manmat, a Panch witness, who did not support the prosecution, PW-2 complainant Vijaya and PW-3 Ramdas, Head Constable, who has conducted the investigation. 5. It appears that the entire prosecution case revolves round the evidence of PW-2 complainant. Relying on the evidence of PW-2, the trial court had convicted the applicant and others for an offence punishable u/s 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was also convicted for an offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It further appears that the applicant and other accused had questioned the correctness of their conviction before Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Criminal Appeal No.7/2008. The first appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence, partly allowed the criminal appeal No.7/2008, by acquitting the other accused but maintaining the conviction of the applicant u/s 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has impugned the said judgments in the present criminal revision application. 7. Heard Mr.Gunale, learned counsel for the applicant {4} Cri. Revision No.244/2008 followed by the submissions of learned APP for respondent State. 8. In revision, the law does not permit to re-appreciate the evidence. It is only permissible in revisional jurisdiction to see as to whether any error is committed by the courts below or any perversity is brought to the notice of the revisional Court. A very limited scope is there in the revisional jurisdiction to find out as to whether there is any apparent error of law, which requires to be corrected. 9. It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that both the courts below have committed an error in discarding the same evidence of PW-2 for acquittal of accused No.1 to 3 whereas accepting the same for convicting the applicant. According to learned counsel for the applicant, this amounts to perversity. 10. In view of the above submission, it is imperative to consider the evidence of PW-2 Vijayabai. Perusal of the evidence of PW-2 clearly demonstrates that on the day of the alleged incident, actual slaps or assault was given by accused No.2 and 3, however the said evidence has been discarded by the trial court on the ground that the same has not been mentioned in the complaint lodged by PW-2. Therefore, on the said count, accused No.1 to 3 were acquitted of the charge punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations against the present applicant are that, he had caught hold of her heir and dragged her out of the {5} Cri. Revision No.244/2008 house, forced her to sit in an auto and brought her and confined in a room. So far as evidence of PW-2 is concerned, the same clearly indicates that the said act was committed by original accused No.1 to 3 and on this count the appellate court has acquitted the original accused No.1 to 3 of the offence. Surprisingly, the complainant PW-2 nowhere states that she was dragged or assaulted by the applicant or she was confined by the applicant. On the contrary, it is the evidence of the complainant that the applicant, after 2/3 days had taken her out of the house. In the premise and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, both the judgments impugned, are perverse. Both the Courts have committed an error in accepting the facts to acquit the accused No.1 to 3 as sufficient to hold the present applicant guilty. Thus, both the impugned judgments, being perverse, require to be quash and set aside. 11. In the result, revision application is allowed. Conviction recorded by both the Courts below is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted. The bail bonds of the applicant stands cancelled. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn244-08