SHIVDAS TULSHIRAM BORKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46593


                                               *1*                      20revn132o18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2018
                              SHIVDAS TULSHIRAM BORKAR
                                           VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                ...
                Shri Lathe B. G., Advocate for the Applicant.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                                                ...

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  DATE : 05 October 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.          Heard the learned advocate for the respective

                parties.


                2.          The applicant/ accused is challenging the judgment

                and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional

                Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Criminal Appeal No.44/2013 whereby,

                the appeal of the applicant came to be dismissed. In the said

                appeal, the applicant had challenged the judgment and order

                dated 29.05.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Jafrabad, in STC

                No. 24/2011 wherein, the applicant was convicted for the offence

                punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was

                sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months with
                                 *2*                      20revn132o18


fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for 10 days.


3.             The learned advocate for the applicant submits that

the applicant has undergone sentence of 10 days. The learned

Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not considered

evidence on record in proper perspective. The prosecution has

failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and as such,

the charge under Section 354 cannot be said to be proved against

the applicant. The learned advocate further submits that

testimony of PW-1/ informant is not at all supported by PW-2

and PW-3, who happen to be the husband and father-in-law of

the informant, respectively. The informant being the sole

interested witness, her testimony requires to be examined with

great caution. According to the learned advocate, the informant

in her deposition has stated that on the date of incident, the

applicant has come to her field when she was doing agricultural

work and the applicant has allegedly grabbed her from behind

and outraged her modesty. When the informant made hue and

cry, the applicant fled away from the spot and after the incident,

the relatives of the informant came there and they have lodged
                                *3*                       20revn132o18


the report. Thus, according to the learned advocate, there is delay

of six hours in lodging the FIR and delay is not properly

explained by the prosecution. The learned advocate submits that

the conviction cannot be based upon such insufficient and

unreliable evidence. He, therefore, prays for allowing the

revision application.


4.           Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposes the

revision application and submits that the applicant has been

rightly convicted by the Trial Court after considering the

evidence on record. There are concurrent findings of the Courts

below. This court’s revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The

applicant has not pointed out before this Court any glaring defect

in the impugned orders. Since there is no miscarriage of justice,

this Court may not interfere with the findings of the Courts

below. The learned APP, therefore, prays for dismissal of the

revision application.


5.           With the assistance of the learned advocates for the

parties, I have gone through depositions of the prosecution

witnesses. The informant/ prosecutrix in her deposition clearly

deposed that on the given date and time, the applicant had
                                *4*                       20revn132o18


outraged her modesty. The informant/ prosecutrix was cross-

examined at length, however, nothing was brought on record by

the defence so as to disbelieve her evidence. Depositions of PW-

2 and PW-3 have also been perused and same fully corroborates

with the version of the prosecutrix. Admittedly, the in-laws of the

prosecutrix arrived after the applicant/ accused fled away from

the spot, therefore, they have not witnessed the applicant on the

spot. In view of corroboration of witnesses, the testimony of the

prosecutrix is inspiring confidence. There is no reason to depose

against the applicant.


6.           In view of the above discussion, the impugned

orders passed by the Courts below are absolutely correct, proper

and requires no interference. Having regard to the limited scope

of revisional jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily

interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are

shown to be perverse, manifestly erroneous, illegal or resulting in

miscarriage of justice. On independent consideration of the

evidence of the witnesses, I find that the findings recorded by the

Courts below are based on evidence available on record and

cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly illegal. As no
                                 *5*                       20revn132o18


illegality and perversity is found in the impugned judgments, I

am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant Criminal

Revision Application. Hence, the conviction needs to be

maintained.


7.            However, so far as the question of sentence is

concerned, it is stated that the incident occurred in the year 2010.

The applicant is presently aged about 55 years and has no

previous criminal antecedents. The applicant has faced the

criminal proceedings for considerable period of about 17 years.

Having regard to the nature of the offences, the age and

antecedents of the applicant, the fact that the incident is of the

year 2010 and the long passage of time, I am of the view that the

substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the

applicant deserves to be modified. At the same time, the

conviction recorded by the Courts below does not warrant any

interference. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and in order to compensate the informant, the applicant is

directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)

to the informant by way of compensation as per Section 357 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The compensation amount shall
                                        *6*                      20revn132o18


      be paid to the informant on such deposit. Hence, the following

      order:-


                                     ORDER


      (a)       The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.

      (b)      The conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable
      under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.

      (c)      The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon
      the applicant by the learned JMFC, Jafrabad, and confirmed by
      the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, is modified. In lieu
      of the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned
      Trial Court, the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-
      (Rupees Ten Thousand) by way of compensation to the
      informant.

      (d)      The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the learned
      Trial Court within a period of one month from today. On such
      deposit, the same shall be paid to the informant.

      (e)      In the event of failure on the part of the applicant to
      deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the
      amount shall be recoverable in accordance with law.

      (f)      The record and proceedings be returned to the concerned

      Court.


kps                               ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )