RAJABAI HANUMANTRAO HARE.versusJAYRAM SHANKAR HARE AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:37472


                                             *1*                      44rev225o19


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2019

                RAJABAI HANUMANTRAO HARE
                            VERSUS
                (1) JAYRAM SHANKAR HARE
                (2) PANDURANG SHANKAR HARE
                (3) BHASKAR SHANKAR HARE
                (4) PRADEEP PANDURANG HARE
                (5) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
                                              …
                Shri Jagdish V. Deshpande, advocate for the applicant/
                complainant.
                Shri M.A. Aher, APP for respondent No.5/State.
                Shri T.G. Gaikwad, advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
                                              ...

                                 CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                 DATE : 17 August 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.         The applicant/ original complainant challenges the

                judgment and order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned

                Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Criminal Appeal

                No.11/2013 thereby, dismissing the said appeal filed by the

                applicant/ complainant and confirming the judgment and order

                dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Ambajogai, in

                SCC No.568/2010 whereby, the present respondent Nos.1 to 4/

                accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under
                                *2*                      44rev225o19


Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code

observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence

beyond reasonable doubt.


2.          According to the applicant, she had filed private

complaint bearing S.C.C. No.568/2010 against respondent Nos.1

to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504,

506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on

18.06.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., respondent Nos.1 to 4 were

passing through the applicant’s land. When she obstructed them,

they pushed her, assaulted her by kicks and fist blows and hunter

and abused her in filthy language with obscene expressions and

gave threat to kill her and her husband if she prevented them. At

that time, sister-in-law of the applicant and others rescued her

from respondent Nos.1 to 4. Thereafter, the applicant went to

Bardapur Police Station along with her relatives and filed the

complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 4. The police referred the

applicant to the hospital. But, the police filed N.C. bearing

No.76/2010 against respondent Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, the

applicant filed the complaint before the learned JMFC.


3.          Thereafter, the learned JMFC was pleased to pass an
                                *3*                      44rev225o19


order of issuance of process against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for

offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of

the Indian Penal Code on 14.03.2011. The plea of respondent

Nos.1 to 4 was recorded on 09.04.2011 and the case was fixed

for evidence of prosecution. The prosecution examined P.W.1

Rajubai Hanumant Hare, PW.2 Janabai Ramkishar Hare, PW.3

Ramkishan Bhagwanrao Hare. After hearing the parties, the Trial

Court was pleased to acquit respondent Nos.1 to 4 for want of

substantive evidence.


4.          Learned advocate for the applicant/ complainant

submits that both the orders passed by the Courts below are

incorrect and perverse as they have not considered evidence in

proper perspective. A bare perusal of evidence of eyewitnesses

would go to show that the accused have committed the crime.

Therefore, the Courts below ought to have convicted the accused

persons. PW-1 (Rajubai Hare) i.e. applicant in her evidence has

categorically stated that at the relevant time of incident, the

accused persons had come to her field and when she objected

them not to use path way, they started abusing and assaulting her

and also outraged her modesty. PW-2 (Janabai) and PW-3
                                  *4*                      44rev225o19


(Ramkishan) fully corroborates the statement of the applicant

PW-1. As such, the prosecution has sufficiently established that

at the relevant time the accused persons had assaulted and abused

the applicant/ victim. However, both Courts below have

committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons. Learned

advocate, therefore, prayed for allowing this revision and

convicting the accused persons.


5.          Learned APP appearing for the State has supported

the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant. He

submits that the prosecution has sufficiently brought guilt of the

accused before the Trial Court and as such, the Trial Court ought

to have convicted the accused persons.


6.          On the other hand, learned advocate for the accused

persons supported the impugned orders and submitted that both

the Courts below have rightly appreciated evidence on record

and acquitted the accused persons.


7.          After hearing learned advocates for the respective

parties and going through evidence on record, it is evident that at

the relevant time of alleged incident, the dispute between the

applicant/ complainant and the accused persons was going on
                                *5*                       44rev225o19


pertaining to path way. The prosecution has examined as many as

three witnesses to prove the charge against the accused persons.

Learned Trial Court has minutely examined evidence of the

applicant (PW-1) and found that her evidence is nothing but

exaggeration and is not at all corroborated by the evidence of

other two witnesses. Other two witnesses i.e. PW-2 Janabai and

PW-3 Ramkishan have given different versions of the incident

and therefore, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused

persons since there is discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses.


8.           The learned Sessions Judge, while deciding the

appeal preferred by the applicant, was pleased to observe that the

applicant has admitted in her evidence that she does not

remember the date of incident and in her complaint, it was not

mentioned that PW-2 and PW-3 had come on the spot of

incident. The applicant has improvised her evidence about

presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the relevant point of time on the

spot. The Appellate Court has observed that in order to prove the

charge under Section 354, the complainant was required to

mention the exact conduct of the accused in order to prove the
                                       *6*                       44rev225o19


      charge of outraging her modesty. However, evidence of PW-1

      complainant herself and PW-2 and PW-3, who are alleged

      eyewitnesses, does not disclose details of conduct of the accused

      persons, which would constitute the offence of outraging her

      modesty. Therefore, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the

      appeal by observing that the Trial Court has not committed any

      error while acquitting the accused persons.


      9.          In view of the above discussion and 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 PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, 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 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 Criminal

      Revision Application is dismissed.


kps                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )