1 crir no.3 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2012

Mr. Prasad Shirodkar,

son of Madhu Shirodkar,

aged about 33 years, service,

resident of H.No.72,

Housing Board Colony,

New Vaddem,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa – 403 802.

…. Petitioner

V/s

1. STATE,

(through Vasco Police Station,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa).

2. Public Prosecutor.

…. Respondents

Shri T. P. Pereira, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. M. Pinto, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

CORAM : R.C. CHAVAN, J.

DATE : 7^th AUGUST, 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT :

This revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the

learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge

holding the applicant guilty of offence punishable under Section 509 of

the Penal Code and letting him off on admonition under Section 3 of

Probation of Offenders Act.

2 crir no.3 of 2012

2.

Facts which give rise to this proceeding are as under:

On 12/06/2009 lady Head Constable Varsha Kelkar was on her

duty at Vasco Police Station. At about 5.30 p.m., the applicant came to

her and asked her about his brother's verification report. Varsha Kelkar

told him that the report was ready and placed before the PI for his

signature. Thereafter, the applicant started abusing Varsha and uttered the

words which are mentioned by Varsha in her complaint as well as in her

deposition. He then threatened Varsha that he would bring her on road.

This happened in the presence of her colleagues. On arrival of the PI,

Varsha gave a report upon which an offence was registered and

investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer performed panchanama of spot, examined witnesses and sent the

charge sheet to the Court of learned JMFC, Vasco for offence punishable

under Section 354 and 509 of the Penal Code.

3.

The learned Magistrate explained the particulars of the accusation

to the applicant and since he pleaded not guilty, put him on trial. The

prosecution examined in all 10 witness in its attempt to bring home the

guilt of the applicant. After considering the prosecution evidence, in the

light of the defence made by the applicant, the learned Magistrate

acquitted the applicant of offence punishable under Section 354 of the

3 crir no.3 of 2012

Penal Code, but held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section

509 of the Penal Code and released him on admonition. The applicant

preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, who maintained the

order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Aggrieved thereby, the

applicant is before this Court.

4.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have gone

through the evidence on record. PW1/Varsha Kelkar is the complainant

whose evidence about the applicant's coming to her office making

inquiries about his brother's verification and then abusing her is

corroborated by PW2 lady constable Harsha Mapari and PW6 police

constable Balgo Gawas, who were present in the office at the time of

incident. One Shaikh Mohammad, who was examined as PW8 was also

supposed to have been present at the time of the incident, but he turned

hostile and did not support prosecution. The witnesses at the panchanama

spot PW3/Mohammad Mandale and PW4/Basavraj Asmani do not

support the prosecution. PW5/Kiran Podwal was the police inspector

who stated about the duty of the applicant on the relevant date. This

shows that the applicant could have been in the office of Varsha Kelkar at

the relevant time. PW7/ASI Vassudev Naik proved the station diary's

extract about duty of the appl