Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.
Raju @ Ajit Sarfraj Tadvi, Shantaram Manil Sonawane, Dhanraj Parashuram Chaudhari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 1995
Decided On : 14-07-2015
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DELAYED REPORTING - CORROBORATION - FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - SECTION 120B, 452, 342, 506, 292, 385, 355, 351 IPC - SECTION 452, 342, 506 IPC - SECTION 292 IPC - SECTION 385 IPC - SECTION 355 IPC - SECTION 351 IPC - SECTION 34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 120B, 452, 342, 506, 292, 385, 355, and 351 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The incident took place in March 1986, but the FIR was lodged in August 1994. The victim, Ajit Porwar, alleged that the appellants had taken nude photographs of him and Pratibha, a telephone operator, and demanded Rs. 25,000/-. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed that they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in reporting the incident was significant and raised doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The court also noted that there was no corroboration for the victim's testimony, and that the evidence of the other witnesses was unreliable. The court further found that the Investigating Officer had fabricated evidence to support the prosecution case. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in reporting the incident rendered the prosecution case doubtful? 2. Whether the evidence of the victim was corroborated by other evidence? 3. Whether the evidence of the other witnesses was reliable? 4. Whether the Investigating Officer had fabricated evidence to support the prosecution case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in reporting the incident was significant and raised doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The court noted that the victim had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that there was no evidence to suggest that he was prevented from reporting the incident earlier. 2. The court held that the evidence of the victim was not corroborated by other evidence. The court noted that the other witnesses were either unreliable or had an interest in falsely implicating the appellants. 3. The court held that the evidence of the other witnesses was unreliable. The court noted that the other witnesses were either unreliable or had an interest in falsely implicating the appellants. 4. The court held that the Investigating Officer had fabricated evidence to support the prosecution case. The court noted that the Investigating Officer had made false statements before the Magistrate and had omitted important details from the statements of the witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order of conviction were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Abhay M. Thipsay, J.
1. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 292 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 385 IPC read with Section 34, Section 355 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 351 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After holding a trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant No. 1 guilty of all the aforesaid offences and convicted him accordingly. She, however, held appellant Nos. 2 and 3 guilty only of the offences punishable under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and convicted them accordingly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed the following sentences on the appellants:-
Offence punishable under Section
Sentence
Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
Appellant No. 1 : Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years & Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 months
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 : Simple Imprisonment of 1 day & Fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment of 1 month
Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
Appellant No. 1 : Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 month
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 : Simple Imprisonment of 1 day & Fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment of 1 month
Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC
Appellant No. 1 : Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 month
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 : Simple Imprisonment of 1 day Fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, Simple Imprisonment of 1 month
Section 292 IPC
Appellant No. 1 : Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 months
Section 385 IPC
Appellant No. 1 : Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year Fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 months
Section 355 IPC
Appellant No. 1 : Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 months
The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellants have approached this court challenging the impugned judgment and order, and praying that they be acquitted.
3. The appellant No. 1 passed away during the pendency of the appeal. However, since the sentence is also of fine, the appeal, even in so far as it relates to appellant No. 1, does not abate. The same needs to be decided on merits.
4. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, may, in brief, be stated thus:
a. Ajit Porwar (PW1) - the First Informant - was, in the month of March 1986, residing as a tenant in a room on the ground floor of a building known as 'Pitrukul' near Natraj Talkies, Jalgaon. The building was owned by one Shaligram Choudhari (PW5). Ajit Porwar was working in the jeweler's shop - Rajmal Lakhichand. One Rekha Sonawane was also working in the said shop as a Telephone Operator. Ajit Porwar got acquainted with sister of Rekha - Pratibha Sonawane - as she used to visit the shop to meet Rekha. Gradually, the friendship between Ajit Porwar and Pratibha Sonawane developed into a love relationship. Pratibha sometimes us
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
