JIJABAI W/O. YAMAJI WAGHMAREversusRAMESHWAR S/O. TUKARAM RATHOD AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:43445


                                                                     CriAppeal-376-2019
                                                 -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2019


                 Jijabai w/o Yamaji Waghmare,
                 Age 50 years, Occupation Agriculture/Labour,
                 R/o. Guru Pimpri, Taluka Ghansawangi,
                 District Jalna.                                  … Applicant
                                                                  (Ori. Complainant)

                       Versus


                 1.    Rameshwar s/o Tukaram Rathod,
                       Age 40 years, Occupation Agriculture,
                       R/o Ghansawangi Tanda,
                       Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna.

                 2.    The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Investigating Officer,
                       Police Station Ghansawangi,
                       Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna.        … Respondents
                                                                  [R1 Orig. Accused]

                                                 …..
                 Mr. G. R. Bhumkar h/f Mr. D. B. Bhange, Advocate for the Appellant.
                      Mr. Ravindra M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                          Mrs. A. S. Mantri, APP for Respondent No.2-State.
                                                 ..…


                                         CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on         : 23.09.2026
                                         Pronounced on       : 24.09.2026
                                                   CriAppeal-376-2019
                                 -2-

JUDGMENT :


1.    Original complainant hereby challenged the judgment and

order of acquittal dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-3, Jalna in Special Case (Atro.) No. 22/2016

acquitting respondent no.1-accused from charge under Section

3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SCST Act”) and Sections 354, 504,

506 of IPC.



2.    Before trial court, case set up by prosecution was that on

06.03.2016 accused respondent herein visited house of informant

PW3, summoned her outside the house, abused her with reference to

her caste and forced her to sit on his motorcycle. She raised hue and

cry attracting attention of her husband PW4. Accused fled. Above

episode was reported to police, resulting into registration of crime

bearing no. 33/2016. After duly investigating the above crime,

chargesheet was filed and accused faced trial vide above special case

at which prosecution adduced evidence of in all 7 witnesses. On

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial court

acquitted the accused. Hence the instant appeal.
                                                       CriAppeal-376-2019
                                   -3-

3.    Learned counsel for the appellant/informant would submit

that, informant is a lady. That on the relevant day, accused had come

to the house and by standing on the road in front of the house, he

gave call to the informant and when she came out, he hurled abuses

referring to the caste she belonged to, and that he also scuffled with

her by attempting to force her to sit on his motorcycle and thereby

there was outraging of modesty also. He pointed out that, informant

raised alarm and so her husband, who was inside the house, came

out. He was also party to the incident on both, caste abuse as well as

outraging modesty. However, learned trial court failed to appreciate

the evidence and merely because neighbours turned hostile, their

versions are disbelieved. According to him, there is incorrect manner

of appreciation of evidence and law. Hence, he urges for setting aside

the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal



4.    In answer to above, learned counsel for the respondent-original

accuse would justify the acquittal by submitting that prosecution has

miserably failed to bring home the charges. According to him,

independent    witnesses    like   neighbours   have    not   supported

prosecution and there was only evidence of informant and her

husband, but the same was also not consistent and rather husband

was not party to the alleged episode at all.
                                                    CriAppeal-376-2019
                                 -4-




5.    Re-appreciated the evidence. It appears that though there are

seven witnesses, independent witnesses i.e. neighbours Laxman Rama

Boralkar (PW1) and Bhimrao Kashinath Divte (PW2) did not support

prosecution. Only evidence that remained for consideration is that of

informant PW3 and her husband PW4.



6.    PW3 Informant deposed at Exhibit 17 that on 06.03.2016

accused came in front of her house and gave her call on which she

came out, he hurled caste abuses by saying that, “ Ye chambharin bai”,

and then asked her to sit on motorcycle and when she refused, he

caught her hands and scuffled with her and she raised hue and cry.

Hearing the same, her son and husband came out and at that time

accused proceeded ahead and while going also, he hurled caste

abuses ie. “Chambharni tu maze sobat ali nahis, haramkhor ” and he

also issued threats to kill.



7.    Her husband PW4, who is examined at Exhibit 21, deposed

that, he was preset in the house with his wife and at that time

accused came, gave call to his wife and so she went out and thereafter

he heard noise and so he came out and he had seen accused sitting on

motorcycle. He claims to have heard accused saying “Chambharin tu
                                                      CriAppeal-376-2019
                                  -5-

mazya motorcycle var bas”, and again said “Chambharin tu mazya

sobat ali nahis”. According to him, thereafter accused issued threats to

kill his wife and ran away.



8.    From the above evidence it is seen that, it is doubtful that

husband was party to the incident, because he did not depose that

accused had caught hands of his wife. The caste abuses allegedly

narrated by his wife are also distinct than what he reported to have

heard. Therefore it is doubtful whether he had actually seen the

incident.



9.    As stated above, therefore, what remains is only informant’s

evidence, but there is no corroboration as none of the neighbours

have supported her. Moreover, it has come on record that PW4 has

filed similar complaint against one another villager of which he

admitted in cross. Therefore, there are reasons to hold, as submitted,

that PW3 and PW4 are habitual complainants.



10.   Yet again, as submitted, there is inordinate delay in lodging

report because occurrence of 06.03.2016 is apparently reported on

14.03.2016. Though explanation for delay is offered, PW4 husband

could have set law into motion, but the same has not happened.
                                                      CriAppeal-376-2019
                                 -6-

Therefore, case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt

and therefore learned trial court committed no error in giving benefit

of doubt to the accused. No case being made out, the following order

is passed :

                               ORDER

                  The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.




                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre