A. P. Bhangale, J. - (1.)Revision Applicant and his Advocates, are absent despite the fact that on 8.10.2008, the revision application was adjourned by way of last chance and it was specifically directed to be kept for final hearing. Earlier also, on the ground that the matter is likely to be compounded and that complainant has gone to Gujarat and she would be returning after 15 days, it appears that Mr R.P Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, had sought adjournment on 11.12.2006. Thereafter, on 16.4.2007 the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing. But the applicant and his Advocates did not bother to attend the final hearing of this Revision Application.
(2.)Mr A.S.Sonare, the learned APP invited my attention to the nature of evidence against the revisionapplicant/ accused. It appears that on 27.1.1990 Ku. Annapurna Sambhaji Thoke, aged about 20 years, had lodged a report at Umarkhed Police Station, informing that on 27.1.1990 at noon-time ( about 3.00 p.m.), while she was going to purchase sweet at a shop, the accused-applicant Ashok, aged about 28 years, had called her, given her 50 paise to bring nuts. While the applicant was at his uncle's house, he called said Annapurna inside the house. Annapurna along with her younger sister, went inside the house of the accused. He had closed the door, chained it and thereafter he had asked her to sleep on the cot. Ashok, at that time, who was wearing underwear and baniyan on his person, pulled and kissed her on cheeks and started taking away his underwear. When Annapurna questioned as to what he is doing and thereafter both the sisters cried loudly. The applicant opened the door and ran away towards her house, while her sister remained there. She had told the incident to her grandmother who, in turn, accompanied to the house of the applicant. Later on, after her parents returned from work, Annapurna and her grandmother narrated the whole incident to them. On the basis of report of Annapurna, Umarkhed Police Station had registered the offence against the applicant. The accused was tried before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Umarkhed, being Criminal Case No.48/1996, which was decided by the judgment and order dated 8th August 1997, convicting the applicant for offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the applicant/ accused was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he was directed to suffer RI for three months more. The judgment and order was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 27/1997 before the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Pusad in Criminal Appeal No. 217/1997 which was decided on 6.1.2004. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction for offence punishable u/s 354 concluding that the prosecution had proved that the accused on 27.1.1990 at about 3.00 p.m. used criminal force on Annapurna, with an intention to outrage her modesty. However, the Appellate Court was pleased to reduce the substantive sentence to one year; while maintaining the amount of fine as imposed by the trial Court.
(3.)I have gone through the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below, which are concurrent judgments. It also appears that the defence pleaded by the Revision Applicant was also appropriately considered and disbelieved. Both the trial as well as Appellate Court had considered the evidence of Annapurna as also PW 2 Sushila (mother of the victim ) and PW 3 Sambha Dhoke (father of the victim). Thus, it was found that the evidence before the trial Court was quite natural, reliable and trustworthy. The contention of the revision applicant that he is falsely implicated was disbelieved in view of the direct evidence against him. The Appellate Court also by reasoned judgment dealt with the contentions in defence while maintaining the conviction, although feeling pity, reduced the substantive sentence for one year instead of two years maintaining the fine amount imposed by the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances brought to my notice, I do not find any fault or perversity in the appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below as the conviction appears rested upon well grounded reasons. Notwithstanding the defence evidence led by the accused in the case, no exceptional ground is made out qua concurrent judgments below for exercising revisional jurisdiction so as to interfere with concurrent finding which appears based upon the facts proved in the case.