*1* 44rev225o19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2019 RAJABAI HANUMANTRAO HARE VERSUS (1) JAYRAM SHANKAR HARE (2) PANDURANG SHANKAR HARE (3) BHASKAR SHANKAR HARE (4) PRADEEP PANDURANG HARE (5) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. … Shri Jagdish V. Deshpande, advocate for the applicant/ complainant. Shri M.A. Aher, APP for respondent No.5/State. Shri T.G. Gaikwad, advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 17 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. The applicant/ original complainant challenges the judgment and order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Criminal Appeal No.11/2013 thereby, dismissing the said appeal filed by the applicant/ complainant and confirming the judgment and order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Ambajogai, in SCC No.568/2010 whereby, the present respondent Nos.1 to 4/ accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under 2026:BHC-AUG:37472 *2* 44rev225o19 Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 2. According to the applicant, she had filed private complaint bearing S.C.C. No.568/2010 against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on 18.06.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., respondent Nos.1 to 4 were passing through the applicant’s land. When she obstructed them, they pushed her, assaulted her by kicks and fist blows and hunter and abused her in filthy language with obscene expressions and gave threat to kill her and her husband if she prevented them. At that time, sister-in-law of the applicant and others rescued her from respondent Nos.1 to 4. Thereafter, the applicant went to Bardapur Police Station along with her relatives and filed the complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 4. The police referred the applicant to the hospital. But, the police filed N.C. bearing No.76/2010 against respondent Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, the applicant filed the complaint before the learned JMFC. 3. Thereafter, the learned JMFC was pleased to pass an *3* 44rev225o19 order of issuance of process against respondent Nos.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 14.03.2011. The plea of respondent Nos.1 to 4 was recorded on 09.04.2011 and the case was fixed for evidence of prosecution. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Rajubai Hanumant Hare, PW.2 Janabai Ramkishar Hare, PW.3 Ramkishan Bhagwanrao Hare. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court was pleased to acquit respondent Nos.1 to 4 for want of substantive evidence. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant/ complainant submits that both the orders passed by the Courts below are incorrect and perverse as they have not considered evidence in proper perspective. A bare perusal of evidence of eyewitnesses would go to show that the accused have committed the crime. Therefore, the Courts below ought to have convicted the accused persons. PW-1 (Rajubai Hare) i.e. applicant in her evidence has categorically stated that at the relevant time of incident, the accused persons had come to her field and when she objected them not to use path way, they started abusing and assaulting her and also outraged her modesty. PW-2 (Janabai) and PW-3 *4* 44rev225o19 (Ramkishan) fully corroborates the statement of the applicant PW-1. As such, the prosecution has sufficiently established that at the relevant time the accused persons had assaulted and abused the applicant/ victim. However, both Courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons. Learned advocate, therefore, prayed for allowing this revision and convicting the accused persons. 5. Learned APP appearing for the State has supported the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant. He submits that the prosecution has sufficiently brought guilt of the accused before the Trial Court and as such, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused persons. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the accused persons supported the impugned orders and submitted that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated evidence on record and acquitted the accused persons. 7. After hearing learned advocates for the respective parties and going through evidence on record, it is evident that at the relevant time of alleged incident, the dispute between the applicant/ complainant and the accused persons was going on *5* 44rev225o19 pertaining to path way. The prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses to prove the charge against the accused persons. Learned Trial Court has minutely examined evidence of the applicant (PW-1) and found that her evidence is nothing but exaggeration and is not at all corroborated by the evidence of other two witnesses. Other two witnesses i.e. PW-2 Janabai and PW-3 Ramkishan have given different versions of the incident and therefore, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons since there is discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, while deciding the appeal preferred by the applicant, was pleased to observe that the applicant has admitted in her evidence that she does not remember the date of incident and in her complaint, it was not mentioned that PW-2 and PW-3 had come on the spot of incident. The applicant has improvised her evidence about presence of PW-2 and PW-3 at the relevant point of time on the spot. The Appellate Court has observed that in order to prove the charge under Section 354, the complainant was required to mention the exact conduct of the accused in order to prove the *6* 44rev225o19 charge of outraging her modesty. However, evidence of PW-1 complainant herself and PW-2 and PW-3, who are alleged eyewitnesses, does not disclose details of conduct of the accused persons, which would constitute the offence of outraging her modesty. Therefore, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal by observing that the Trial Court has not committed any error while acquitting the accused persons. 9. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are shown to be perverse, manifestly erroneous, illegal or resulting in miscarriage of justice. On independent consideration of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, I find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on evidence available on record and cannot be said to be perverse or manifestly illegal. As no illegality and perversity is found in the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant Criminal Revision Application. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )