Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 410 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Nilesh Manohar Risodkar

2013-02-20

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Heard leaned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent on the point of delay. After having heard both the sides, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall file application for condonation of delay. The Registrar is directed to mark the said application as disposed of. The application will be filed only for the purposes of record and statistic. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.S. Doifode for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Trupti Udeshi for the respondent. 3. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The respondent is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th July, 2012. The respondent was also tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent has been acquitted of the said offence and application for grant of leave to file appeal against the said judgment of acquittal has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. 5. The present appeal is for enhancement of punishment imposed on the respondent by the trial Court. The trial Court has sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent has already undergone the substantive sentence and has paid fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The respondent is present before the Court. 6. The victim girl was daughter of second wife of the respondent and was staying with the respondent. The allegations were made against the respondent that he used to sexually abused the victim. The victim in her evidence before the trial Court has stated that the respondent had on many occasions partially penetrated his private part into vagina of the victim. That part of evidence appeared to be disbelieved by the trial Court and therefore, the respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. I have gone through the evidence of the victim girl. Serious allegations made against the respondent in the evidence were not stated in her earlier statement before the police. 7. I have gone through the evidence of the victim girl. Serious allegations made against the respondent in the evidence were not stated in her earlier statement before the police. The Investigating Officer has been examined in this regard and he has admitted in his cross-examination that the major portion of the allegations made against the respondent were not stated by the victim in her statement before the police. In my opinion, the prosecution should have been contended with the punishment imposed on the respondent and there was no necessity to file appeal for enhancement of sentence. With these observations, I dismiss the appeal. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed.