( 1 )

cria4049.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4049 OF 2012

The State of Maharashtra

..

Applicant

Versus

Ramakant Laxmanrao Pulkundwar

..

Respondent

Mr. G.R. Ingole-Patil, APP for the applicant/State.

Mr. A.V. Patil (Indrale), Advocate for sole respondent.

CORAM : P.N. DESHMUKH,J.

DATED :

06.03.2014

P.C. :-

1.

This is an application for grant of leave to

file appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the

judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,

F.C., Aurangabad, in S.C.C. No. 661 of 2011 on

11.05.2012, acquitting the respondent of the offences

punishable under section 294, 507, 509 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2.

It is case of the prosecution that the

( 2 )

cria4049.12

respondent on 20.10.2010 made a phone call from his

mobile No. 9552557781 to the complainant Smt. Meena on

her mobile No. 9421970948 and uttered abuses by saying

that “Kuthe Gela To Arpal Chor, Tu Chinal Aheyas tuji

don mule daha bapachi ahet” and also criminally

intimidated her saying that “tuji mule me uchlun nehil”.

It is further case of the prosecution that the

complainant has kept her mobile phone on speaker mode and

thus P.W.2-Bhupal Arpal and P.W.3-Pratishta Mahajan,

heard conversation and thus on the basis of report lodged

by Smt. Meena, the offence came to be registered.

3.

Perused the evidence, where-from it has come on

record in the evidence of P.W. Meena and even according

to the case of the prosecution that the phone call is

alleged to have made by the respondent to the complainant

and P.W. Meena has stated that she has received the phone

call in the house, which admittedly cannot be a public

place.

( 3 )

cria4049.12

.

Similarly, to contemplate commission of offence

of criminal intimidation, there has to be anonymous

communication or precaution has to be taken to conceal

the name or residence of the person from whom threat has

come. While to attract the provisions of Section 509 of

the Indian Penal Code, which refers to uttering of words

with intention to insult the modesty of any woman, no

evidence establishing above ingredients is found, as

there is no evidence to establish that the respondent on

making phone call has not disclosed his name. It is

material to note that even according to the case of the

prosecution, the complainant’s mobile number is

9421970948. However, in her evidence Meena has stated

that said mobile number belongs to one Pratishta Mahajan.

In the circumstance, the view taken by learned Magistrate

is a possible view to be taken.

4.

The scope of interference in an appeal against

the acquittal by now is well established. Unless the

( 4 )

cria4049.12

view taken by the Trial Judge is either impossible or

perverse, it is not permissible by this court to

interfere therein. The learned Trial Judge by well

reasoned order has found that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against

the accused. Upon perusal of the judgment and material

placed on record, I do not find that the view taken by

the learned Trial Judge is either perverse or impossible

so as to warrant any interference. The application is,

therefore, dismissed. Leave is refused.

[P.N. DESHMUKH,J.]

snk/2014/MAR14/cria4049.12