Bombay High Court
Shri Mukund S/O Anant Bhaskare ( In Jail) vs State Of Mah., Thr. Senior Police ... on 24 January, 2020
Author: Swapna Joshi
Bench: Swapna Joshi
1/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2019
Mukund Anant Bhaskare
Aged about 61 Years, Occu - Private
Service; Resident at - Flat No.121/1,
2nd Floor, Shri Mangal Apartment,
Giripeth, Nagpur. ... APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra
through Senior Police Inspector,
Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
Mr. Supreet Singh Bagga h/f Mr. Amit C. Khare, Advocate for
Applicant.
Mr. Amit Chutke, APP for Respondent - State.
CORAM : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.
DATE : JANUARY 24, 2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard. Admit. By consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, present matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage only.
2. By the present Revision, Applicant has challenged the ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 2/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) Judgment and Order dated 8th August, 2019 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2016, partly allowing the appeal preferred against the Judgment dated 22nd June 2016 in Summary Criminal Case No.375 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur and confirming the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby the Applicant - Accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. The Applicant - Accused was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, sentenced to suffer fifteen days. The Applicant - Accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
3. The factual matrix of the present case are that, the informant Smt. Laxmidevi Maganlal Paigwar (PW-1) is residing in ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 3/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) Flat No.11, third floor, Shrimangal Apartment, Giripeth, Nagpur. The Applicant - Accused is also residing in the flat on second floor of the same Apartment. During the intervening night of 3/4/2005 and 4/4/2005 at about 12.15 a.m., while the complainant (PW-1) and her daughter Shweta (PW-6) were talking with informant's sister-in-law Mrs. Geeta Jagdish Saifuriya (PW-7), she heard noise of quarrel between the son of informant namely, Anurag (PW-3) and the Applicant - Accused. Therefore, PW-1 complainant along with her daughter PW-6 Shweta came down on the ground floor of the building to see as to what had happened. As soon as the Applicant - Accused saw the informant and her daughter Shweta, he abused Shweta by saying, "Tu Bambai Main Kya Karti Hai Yaha Muze Malum Hai, Tu Randi Hai, Teri Mai Ijjat Utarunga". Meanwhile the husband of the informant namely, Maganlal (PW-5) came there. The Applicant - Accused also abused him by saying that he is corrupt and taking bribe under the table and abused by saying, "Gandu, Madarchod". The Applicant - Accused then went inside his house and brought iron rod and tried to assault the son of the informant i.e. Anurag (PW-3).
4. Thereafter the report was lodged by the informant and ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 4/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) on the basis of that report, offence vide Crime No.3049 of 2005 came to be registered. Police visited the place of incident and prepared spot panchanma, so also recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence and hearing both the sides, convicted the Applicant - Accused as aforesaid.
5. I have heard Mr. Bagga, the learned Counsel for Applicant and Mr. Chutke, the learned APP for Respondent - State. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings of the present matter.
6. Mr. Bagga, the learned Counsel for Applicant contended that the Judgments and orders passed by the learned courts below are illegal and perverse in as much as this Court has not considered that all the witnesses were interested witnesses and hence no reliance can be placed on their version. On the contrary, Mr. Chutke, the learned APP supported the Judgment passed by the learned courts below. He submitted that the learned courts below have properly assessed the evidence led by the prosecution ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 5/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) witnesses and convicted the Applicant - Accused. It is submitted by the learned APP that the testimony of PW-3 Anurag, PW-5 Maganlal and PW-6 Shweta are corroborated with each other on all material aspects with the testimony of PW-1 Laxmidevi, who is the complainant. It is submitted that although a case is put up to the witnesses that there was a dispute between the Builder and Developer of the society with the husband of PW-1 Laxmidevi i.e. PW-5 Maganlal and it was also admitted that the accused was supporting the Builder. However, that cannot be the reason for falsely implicating the accused in the present case.
7. In order to consider the rival contentions of both the sides, it would be advantageous to go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
8. At the outset, it may be mentioned here that only because the witnesses are closely related with each other, their testimony cannot be discarded only on that ground. Admittedly the incident had taken place during the night hours i.e. at 12.15 a.m. on 4/4/2005. It was not expected that at that time any independent person would remain present at the place of incident. ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 :::
6/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg)
9. The testimony of the complainant PW-1 Laxmidevi shows that while she was talking with the guests, who had been to her house, she heard the noise of her son Anurag (PW-3) and the accused, therefore, she along with her daughter PW-6 Shweta went to the ground floor of the Apartment and the Accused suddenly started abusing PW-1 complainant loudly. So also he abused her daughter PW-6 Shweta by stating that she is working at Bombay. "Tu Bambai Me Kya Karti Hai, Muze Sab Malum Hai, Tu Randi Hai, Mai to Teri Ijjat Utarunga." He further said to the husband of PW-1 complainant that he is corrupt and take bribe under the table and stated "Gandu, Madarchod". So also the Accused tried to attack the son of PW-1 complainant by iron rod. PW-1 Laxmidevi then proceeded to the police station and lodged report (Exh.15). Nothing adverse has been elicited from the cross- examination of PW-1 Laxmidevi, which would pointed out that her testimony is not reliable.
10. It was suggested to PW-1 Laxmidevi that one Sunil Samdekar resides on the upper floor in the same building and her husband has filed a case against Sunil Samdekar. She, however, stated that she is not aware whether wife of Sunil Samdekar has ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 7/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) lodged report against her children and the accused is witness in that case. Testimony of PW-1 Laxmidevi is not shaken in the cross- examination and is corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 Anurag, PW-5 Maganlal, PW-6 Shweta and PW-7 Geeta Saifuriya.
11. The evidence of PW-3 Anurag indicates that during the night of 3/4/2005 and 4/4/2005 at about 12.15 hours while he was returning home, the Applicant - Accused who was resident of second floor said to him that his father is corrupt and he takes money under the table. At that time his mother and sister came to that place. The Accused said to his sister that she was residing in Mumbai and said that "Tu Mumbai Me Rahti Hai, Tu Randibaji Karti Hai Mai Teri Ijjat Utarunga." So also he abused PW-1 Laxmidevi and his father PW-5 Maganlal by saying, "Gandu, Madarchod". Thereafter he lifted the iron rod and rushed towards PW-3 Anurag. In the cross-examination it was suggested to PW-3 Anurag that his father was suspended and CBI had conducted a raid in his house and the said case is pending in the court. It was also suggested that many cases were pending between PW-5 Maganlal and Builder and Developer of the building namely, Sanjay Bhoot regarding the Apartment and PW-3 Anurag was acquitted in that ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 8/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) case. It was also suggested that wife of Sunil Samdekar who was resident of the same building had lodged complaint against the father of PW-3 Anurag and Sanjay Bhoot and Sunil Samdekar were friends.
12. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 Anurag shows that there were altercations between Sunil Samdekar and Sanjay Bhoot at one side and the father of PW-3 Anurag on the other side in respect of the Flat. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 Anurag. The evidence of PW-5 Maganlal, PW-6 Shweta and PW-7 Mrs. Geeta is also on the same lines. They are also relatives of PW-1 Laxmidevi. No doubt at the relevant time PW-7 Geeta had visited the house of PW-1 Laxmidevi as a guest. She also stated about the abuses hurled by the Applicant - Accused. She stated that the accused said to PW-6 Shweta that, "Tum Randi Ho, Tumhari Ijjat Utar Dunga". So also the Accused brought a rod to assault PW-3 Anurag. The evidence of this witness is consistent and cogent.
13. It is not disputed that the place of incident was in the premises of the Apartments. The evidence on record shows that ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 9/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) the accused has abused not only to the father of PW-3 Anurag i.e. PW-5 Maganlal that he is corrupt person, however, he has also abused PW-6 Shweta in most filthy language which is not expected from the educated persons who are residing in the Apartments. The Accused has uttered the words by which the modesty of that lady was insulted due to which she had suffered mental agony and damaged her character through the imputation made by the Accused. So also the Accused attempted to defame PW-6 Shweta in the society. The act of using the alleged words is sufficient to intrude upon the privacy of a woman. There is a clinching evidence on record to show that those words were uttered by the Accused intending to insult the modesty of PW-6 Shweta. The act of the Accused is not worthy of leniency. As such, in my opinion, both the courts below have assessed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective and have convicted the Accused. No interference is called for in the Judgment passed by the learned courts below.
14. Mr. Bagga, the learned Counsel for Applicant submits that age of the Applicant is 62 years and incident had occurred way back in 2005, hence he prays for leniency. He submitted that ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 10/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) Applicant has already under gone the imprisonment for ten days, and therefore, leniency be shown to him. Hence, in my opinion, considering the age of the Applicant and that no antecedents are pointed out by the prosecution as such against him and also considering the fact that the incident had taken place fifteen years back, following punishment would meet the ends of justice.
15. In view the above facts and circumstances, following order is passed.
ORDER
(A) Criminal Revision is partly allowed.
(B) Conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 294,
509 and 506 (I) of Indian Penal Code passed by the learned courts below is hereby maintained. However, the sentence is modified in the following terms -
(i) The Applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period for which he had already undergone and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-.
(ii) The Applicant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 ::: 11/11 10.Revn.184.19.(Judg) suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period for which he had already undergone and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-.
(iii) The Applicant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period for which he had already undergone and is directed to pay a fine of Rs.7000/-.
(iv) The Applicant to pay the fine amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
16. Criminal Revision is disposed of accordingly.
[MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.] Yadav VG ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2020 01:29:41 :::