LexPANDURANG SITARAM BHAGWAT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PANDURANG SITARAM BHAGWAT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DECEMBER, 17, 2004 B [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] Penal Code, I 860; Ss. 323, 354, 504, 506 rlw Section 34 Landlord and three others allegedly assaulted tenant and outraged C the modesty of his wife-Trial Court found the landlord guilty, convicted and sentenced him but acquitted other accused persons-Affirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court-On appeal, Held : No independent witness examined and witnesses named in the Panchnama declared hostile-Exact place of occurrence and the manner of commission of the offence materially D differ-Since Trial Court observed that most of the statements made by the prosecution witnesses as incorrect and unreliable, statements should have been examined with regard to commission of the offence keeping in view the extent of falsity therein-Observations made by the Appellate Court based on surmises and conjectures-In the facts and circumstances of the E case, accused entitled to benefit of doubt-Thus, impugned judgment set aside-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 397. Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court-Exercise of-Held : Could be exercised since correctness, legality or propriety of the findings of the Courts below fall for consideration as all the three accomplices who have F shared common intention except the main accused acquitted by the Court. Doctrines : Doctrine 'falsus m uno, falsus in omnibus'-Applicability of G Complainant is wife of one of the tenants of the Appellant, the landlord. The complainant alleged that the appellant along with three other accomplices entered into her room forcibly and outraged her modesty, when she was watching a movie on T.V. along with her two sons, and later her husband was also assaulted by the accused persons. H On the basis of First Information Report lodged by the complainant, 1046 J P. S. BHAGWAT v. STATE 1047 appellant and three other accused persons faced trial for committing A offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant and convicted him or committing the offence of outraging modesty of the complainant (PW2) and sentenced him accordingly. Appellate co.urt dismissed the ·appeal and Revision petition was dismissed by the High B Court. Hence the appeal. It was contended by the appellant that the High Court failed to consider the merit of the case; and that he was falsely implicated. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The strained relationship between the parties is not in dispute. If the contention of the complainant and her husband to the effect that they had already taken a decision to shift from the premises c is believed, there does not appear to be a plausible reason as to why the D Appellant and three other accused would trespass into the house and assault them. No independent witness has been examined by the Trial Court and the witnesses of the Panchnama have been declared hostile. The approach of the Trial Judge that ordinarily a lady would not "put her character at stake" may not be wrong but cannot be applied uni- versally. Each case has to be determined on the touchstone of the factual E matrix thereof. [1051-H, 1052-A-B-C] 1.2. In the instant case, allegation of house trespass was made but no specific charge in relation thereto was made. Charges for causing hurt, along with other charges were specifically disbelieved. The charges of F making false allegations by the victim at the instance of her husband, the tenant who is working in the Police Department cannot be totally brushed aside. No case was also made out that the incident of threatening, abusing or beating took place outside the house of the Appellant. (1052-E, F] 1.3. Though the doctrine 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not G applicable in India but the evidence led by the parties must be appre- ciated keeping in view the entirety of the situation. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that most of the statements made by PW-2 the com- plainant and PW-3 her son were incorrect and no reliance could be placed thereon. The statements of these witnesses with regard to com- H 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A mission of an offence by the Appellant under Section 354 IPC should have been considered keeping in view the extent of falsity in their statements. The statement of these witnesses should have been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.