Tanaji Mahadeo Shinde vs. Kalpana Uttareshwar Chavan

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1809 OF 2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 4590 of 2013)

TANAJI MAHADEO SHINDE ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

KALPANA UTTARESHWAR CHAVAN & ANR.. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The petitioner, aggrieved by his conviction under Section 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), has preferred this special leave petition.

Leave granted.

The appellant along with his other family members were put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 452, 354, 323, 342, 504 and 506 of the IPC. All of them have been convicted by the trial court. However, in appeal, all of them have been acquitted and the appellant only has been held guilty of offence under Section 354 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 354 and three months under Section 452 of the IPC. Revision preferred against the order has been dismissed by the High Court.

According to the prosecution, the appellant herein entered into the house of the victim and alleged to have molested her. It is further the case of the prosecution that when she was going to lodge the report, she was not allowed to go and, in fact, assaulted by the appellant and other accused persons (since acquitted).

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the majority of the prosecution story has been disbelieved, he also ought to have been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. He further points out that there is a delay of about four months in lodging the complaint and there is no explanation to that. It has also been pointed out that a dispute existed between the husband of the victim and the accused persons and on account thereof this false case has been instituted.

Despite service of notice on respondent No. 1 the complainant, she has not chosen to appear. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra defends the impugned order.

Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution to a large extent has been rejected by the appellate Court. Further, there is a delay of about four months in lodging the complaint. Dispute existed between the parties which could be the cause of false implication. The cumulative effect of all these infirmities leave us in doubt and we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts, Accordingly, we grant the appellant the benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. ..........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) ..........................J. (KURIAN JOSPH) New Delhi; the October 21, 2013 ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4590/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 18/04/2013 in CRL.R.A. No.375/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) TANAJI MAHADEO SHINDE Petitioner(s) VERSUS KALPANA UTTARESHWAR CHAVAN & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for bail and office report) Date: 21/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sachin J. Patil, Adv. Mr. Shriram P. Pingle,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Shankar Chillarge, Addl. Govt. Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. | (S.K. Rakheja) | |(Indu Satija) | |Court Master | |Court Master |

(Signed order is placed on the file)