[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1535 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Shivaji Tukaram Patil (Dhang) ..Respondent ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Addl.Sessions Judge, Saingli in Special Criminal Case No.10 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge convicted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Section 354 of IPC. However, he acquitted the Respondent-accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 506 of IPC. Hence, this appeal. [-2-] 2. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had come to the house of the complainant Madhumati for massage. It is the case of the complainant that accused made an attempt to commit intercourse with her. As stated earlier, the accused has been convicted under Section 354 of IPC, hence, it is not necessary to look into this aspect of the matter. As far as the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act is concerned, it is not disputed that the complainant is residing at Vitthalwadi Taluka Palus whereas the accused is residing at village Amanapur. There is nothing on record to show that accused had knowledge that complainant belongs to SC or ST community. Assuming that the accused had knowledge, it cannot be accepted that the accused outraged modesty of the complainant with a view to take revenge on a women who belongs to scheduled caste. There is nothing on record to indicate any such knowledge on [-3-] his part. As far as offence under Section 506 of IPC is concerned, there is no reliable evidence on record to prove this offence. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. 4. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]