1 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.85 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.85 of 2010 Seetabai W/o.Shrimant Tolaji Yetale, Through her husband, Shrimant Tonji Yetale, Age-38 years, Occu-Labour, R/o.Gori, Post.Shahagad, Tq.Ambad. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Ambad 2. Sandeep S/o.Shivaji Talwane, Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Gori, Tq.Ambad, Dist. Jalna RESPONDENTS Mr.A.B.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.Ravindra Nirmal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 25/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant/ original complainant has questioned the correctness of the judgment 2 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.85 of 2010 and order dated 18/11/2008, by which appeal filed by respondent no.2 bearing Criminal Appeal No.23/2005 was allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court in Special Case No.49/2002, recording conviction of respondent no.2 u/s. 3(i)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.P.P. for State and learned counsel for respondent no.2. I have also perused the judgment and order passed by both the courts below. 3. It appears that the complainant Seetabai is deaf and dumb. On 27/09/2002, at around 6.00 p.m., when she was returning from the field of one Shrimant Tilwane, where she had gone for weeding in the crop of sugar-cane, respondent no.2 caught hold of her and pulled her in the crop of sugarcane and pressed her breast. Witness Rahul Sukhdeo, who had witnessed the incident from the temple, rushed towards the field. Then respondent no.2 fled away from the spot. The incident was narrated by the complainant to her husband and in the evening, an offence came to be registered against the applicant. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. After committal of trial, learned Special Court framed charge against accused, recorded the evidence and convicted the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 3(i)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and acquitted him for an offence u/s. 354 of The IPC. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, 3 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.85 of 2010 respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions at Jalna bearing Criminal Appeal No.23/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna pleased to allow the said appeal. The correctness of the said judgment and order is questioned by way of this revision application. 4. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. It is observed by the First Appellate Court that even though the offence was registered and respondent no.2 was convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 3(i)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Preventions of Atrocities) Act, the complaint is silent on the point of caste of the victim. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dilip Nagpure Versus State of Maharashtra, 2008 All MR (Cri.) 135, wherein it is observed in para no.4 that, “it is necessary to mention the case of the complainant and/or accused in the report and unless the caste is mentioned, there cannot be registration of the FIR under the Act.” Admittedly, the complaint is silent on the point of caste of the victim. On this point, First Appellate Court had placed reliance on the observations of this Court, which was one of the ground to allow the appeal. On facts, it is held by the First Appellate Court by observing that the evidence of victim Seetabai was recorded through her husband and he is an interested witness. The husband Shrimant was also examined as P.W.No.1. Reliance is placed on the observations in the matter of Kadugoth Alavi versus State of Kerala, 1982 Cri.L.J. 94, wherein it is held that, “In that case, if he is to be examined, that can only be 4 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.85 of 2010 with the help of an expert of some person who is very much familiar with the witness. If somebody else is available, it is being the services of a person who is witness in the case is not made use of to interpret his evidence or to converse with him. In Ah Sai Vs.King Emperor, AIR 1926 Cal. 922, it has been held that the witness who took active part during the investigation of the case and who gave evidence before the committing Magistrate and who was willing to give evidence on the side of the prosecution in the Sessions Trial, should not be appointed as interpreter.” Before the Trial Court, services of expert other than the interested witness were not availed. On this count, the evidence given by P.W.No.1, who interpreted the evidence given by P.W.No.6 Seetabai, was discarded by the Appellate Court and lastly discarded the evidence given by the independent witness on 2 grounds, first is that it is the case that the respondent no.2, the accused before the Trial Court, forcibly dragged the victim in the field, but the spot pancnama do not show any signs of resistance. On the second ground, the first Appellate Court discarded the evidence of the independent witness was that the independent witness allegedly noticed the incident far away from the temple and there is standing crop of sugarcane of the height of 7-8 feet. Considering the height of the standing crop, it is not possible for anybody to see the alleged incident, in the way and manner, it is deposed. 5. At this juncture, it is useful to give the reference of Apex Court in the matter of K.Prakashan versus P.K.Surenderan, (2008)1 SCC 5 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.85 of 2010 258, and the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of T.Subramanian versus State of Tamilnadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401. In both these matters, it is held that if two views reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court, finding that the accused succeeded in proving his case by preponderance of probabilities, acquitting the accused, cannot be said to be a perverse view taken by the Lower Court. 6. Considering these observations, I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, which require any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, this criminal revision application stands dismissed, as sans any merit. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.rev.85-10