The respondent-accused was held guilty of offenses punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC. The court rejected the trial Judge's reasons for acquittal and considered the consistent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The court imposed the maximum punishment provided by the relevant sections.

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.07.2002 passed by 4th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Regular Criminal Case No.812/2001, recording an order of acquittal of respondent-Ajay of offences punishable under Section 353 and 332 of the Indian penal Code, the instant appeal against acquittal was filed by the State of Maharashtra.

Facts:

2. On 22.12.2000 at about 06.15 p.m. at Central Jail, Akola, respondent-accused assaulted the Jailer and other staff of jail while they were discharging their official duties and were conducting search operation of the prisoners. FIR was lodged by Jailor PW3-Swati Sathe on the same day with City Kotwali Police Station, Akola, and Crime No.252/2000 was registered against the respondent-accused. The police completed investigation and filed charge-sheet on 29.07.2001. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 of the IPC and since he denied the charge, the trial was held. The trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused. Hence this appeal.

Submissions:

3. In support of the appeal, learned A.P.P. for the appellant-State, vehemently argued that there is voluminous evidence on record, that was tendered by the prosecution, which has not even been properly seen and appreciated by the learned trial Judge. On the contrary, the reasons given by the learned trial Judge are perfunctory, without substance and a totally perverse approach has been adopted by the learned trial Judge in the matter. The learned A.P.P. for the State, inviting my attention to the entire evidence, that was tendered before the trial Court, submitted that the impugned judgment is nothing but perverse and has caused miscarriage of justice to the State. He, therefore, prayed for reversal of the order of acquittal.

4. The respondent-accused was served with a notice when the appeal was admitted by this Court on 19.12.2002 and action under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. was also ordered. Though served, he did not appear before this Court. After about 13 years, the appeal came up for hearing before the Court on 06.04.2015 when, due to non appearance of the respondent, this Court issued bailable warrant against the respondent in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The report dated 03.06.2015 shows that bailable warrant was received back by the office, duly executed. He did not appear. On 01.07.2015, this Court issued non bailable warrant for his arrest. However, the report has been received that attempt to find him out have not proved successful and neither father of the respondent nor others are ready to give address of the respondent. Now, since the respondent was already served in the year 2002 when the appeal was admitted and again bailable warrant was also served, this Court decided to appoint an Advocate for the respondent and accordingly Mrs. Pranita Chobe, Advocate was appointed for the respondent. The learned appointed counsel was furnished all the copies of the documents and was asked to remain present for final hearing. On 13.07.2015, the appeal was called out for hearing. However, counsel for the appellant remained absent. Therefore, the appeal was adjourned to 14.07.2015 as part heard. On 14.07.2015, the appointed counsel appeared and argued the appeal for the respondent. This Court having held the respondent guilty, the learned appointed counsel for the respondent was asked to argue the appeal on the question of sentence. Accordingly, she prayed for leniency while awarding the sentence. In that view of the matter, now I proceed to deal with the appeal as under.

Consideration:

5. The prosecution examined number of witnesses in support of its case. The evidence of the prosecution is to the effect that PW3-Swati Sathe was working as Jailer at Akola Central Prison. In routine course, along with her staff and body guards, on 22.12.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. she was taking round in the jail to make search. While she was taking round in the jail, the respondent-accused suddenly