AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Submissions were made by the learned counsel for the applicant on the application filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal.
The non-applicant had been acquitted by the Special Judge (SC/ST) in S. T. No.30/2013 vide judgement dated 12.07.2017 from the charges framed under Sections 452, 354, 353 & 332 of IPC along with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
As per the prosecution story, on 23.02.2013, complainant Rekha Shitole while was posted at Village Susari in Kasturba Gandhi Residential School Hostel as Warden, the non-applicant entered into the hostel at around 10.30 AM, caught hold of the hand of the complainant and abused her regarding her caste. Complainant resisted assault on her by the non-applicant and told him that she would take him to the police station. The non-applicant then pushed her resulting in injury to the complainant on her lips and while fleeing from the spot, non-applicant also had injury on his skull. Thereafter, report was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the non-applicant.
Learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence found complainant's evidence replete with contradictions and omissions and gave the advantage of such weak evidence and has acquitted the non-applicant.
In the application for leave to appeal, it has been mentioned that Trial Court committed a grave mistake in not relying upon the evidence of Bharti (PW-1), Sapna (PW-2).
Learned counsel for the applicant has made submissions which has been responded to by the counsel for the non-applicant.
Original record of the case was perused. While making submissions, portions of the judgement of the Trial Court was referred to by the counsel for the non-applicant. In para-18, it has been pointed out that there was previous enmity between the complainant and the non-applicant. In para-19, it has been found that non-applicant in his capacity as Secretary of Janpad Panchayat was authorized to inspect the girls hostel and has made such inspection on previous occasions as well and in para-20, it has been pointed out that the complainant herself has admitted that she had purchased wheat for the hostel from one Kalusingh for Rs.75,000/- whereas, this hostel being run by the State, only State Government could have procured and supplied the grains and the complainant was not entitled to purchase grains from any private person. Learned Trial Court in para-23 has aptly remarked that it is not possible to assault a lady with an intent to outrage her modesty and at the same time, cause injury to her because intentions involved in these two offence are different and both acts cannot go together. In para-13, the evidence of Bharti (PW-1) and Sapna (PW-2) has been referred to who have stated that the complainant was shouting at the non-applicant as to how he entered into the hostel without prior permission. As already stated, non-applicant in his capacity was authorized to inspect the hostel and it appears that altercation took place between two persons which were fuelled by previous enmity.
After duly considering the submissions and after sifting through the evidence and on considering the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that this application deserves to be rejected. Consequently, this application filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.