##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-AUG:52501 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.696 OF 2016 . Hussain @ Dumma Maheboob Shaikh Age: 32 years, Occu.: Auto Driver, R/o. Bori, Tq. and District Latur .. Appellant (Orig. Accused)

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Latur (Rural), Taluka and District Latur.

2. Priya @ Priyanka D/o. Vitthal Kamble Age: 30 years, Occu.: Private Job, R/o. Village Bori, Tq. And District Latur. .. Respondent …

Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Prasanna N. Kutti Puthenkulam, Advocate for respondent No.2.

...

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

Reserved on : 27-10-2026 Pronounced on : 28-10-2026 JUDGMENT :-

1. In this appeal, there is challenge to judgment and order dated 25-10-2016 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Special Case (Atro) No.2 of 2014 convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 354 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 1 month respectively and to pay fine.

2. On report of PW1 informant, crime was registered at Latur Police Station wherein she reported that on 02-10-2013, while she was washing clothes in the courtyard of her house, accused came there, abused her in filthy language as well as on caste basis and so out of fright she went inside the house. That, accused entered into her house too, caught hold of her hand, dragged her out of the house and thereby outraged her modesty. On above report, Crime bearing No.163 of 2013 was registered for offence under Sections 323, 341, 354, 452, 504, 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Trial of accused was conducted after being chargesheeted, which culminated in the conviction for above offence. Hence, instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant took this Court through the evidence and would submit that, there is false implication to avoid repayment of money taken by informant. That, there was no episode of catching hold of hand of informant as alleged. That, accusations are that, at the time of alleged incident, accused entered her house while her mother was inside and then after catching hold of her hand, accused dragged her out of house, but mother’s evidence is not recorded. Neighbour is examined, but evidence of this witness is full of material omissions rendering her version doubtful. Learned counsel pointed out that, learned trial Court already acquitted accused from charge of Section 452 of the IPC as well as for offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Schduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore, learned trial Court ought not to have convicted appellant for offence under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC. According to him, there is erroneous approach while appreciating evidence. That, no distinct findings are recorded on the point of offence under Section 341 of the IPC and as such, judgment being perverse, he prays to set aside the same by allowing the appeal.

4. In answer to above, learned APP for respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 victim would support judgment of conviction and pray to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

5. Here, conviction is under Section 341 and 354 of the IPC, which provides for punishment for wrongful restrain, and assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. In order to establish both the charges, it is incumbent upon prosecution to establish following ingredients.

Essential ingredients for offence under Section 341 :

This section prescribes punishment for wrongful restraint. Wrongful restraint has been defined under Section 339. Essential ingredients of an offence of wrongful restrain are as follows :

(i) That there was some voluntary obstruction caused;

(ii) That the obstruction was such as to prevent any person from proceedi