REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.174 OF 2025 APPLICANT :- Jaigopal Mansaram Ambade, Aged about: 48 Years, Occu. - Private, R/o: Bastarwari Ward, Pauni, Tah. Pauni, Dist. Bhandara. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENT (Org. Complainant) :- State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. Pauni, P.S. Pauni, Tahsil: Pauni, District: Bhandara. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. M.D. Raut & Ms Naziya S. Pathan, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, A.P.P. for Respondent/State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 30.09.2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 13.10.2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioner has filed a criminal revision application challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2023 dated 26.06.2025, thereby the judgment passed by the 2026:BHC-NAG:13722 REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 2 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni in Summary Criminal Case No.06 of 2022 dated 05.08.2023 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raut, submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, however, still the learned Courts below had convicted the applicant and upheld the conviction erroneously. The same needs to be corrected by this Court. The learned counsel submits that there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which goes to the root of the matter and makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of doubt and ought to have been acquitted for the offence charged. 5. Mr. Raut, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the defence had brought its case within the realm of preponderance of probability and that there was previous enmity, between the applicant and the family of the victim and evidence of the victim, was not corroborated by any other witnesses. Thus, the applicant ought to have been acquitted as the applicant has discharged its burden of rebutting the case of the prosecution and pointing out the lacunas in the prosecution case. REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 3 6. Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, learned A.P.P., strongly opposes the revision on the ground that the accused is found guilty of the charge, as correctly assessed from the oral as well as documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The nature of the act committed by the accused person with the informant at the time of commission of the offence was also considered and the trial Court has rightly imposed a lesser fine by taking into consideration the status of the applicant and the imposition of sentence. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is justified and properly evaluated. The impugned judgment by the Appellate Court also take into consideration, the reasons given by the learned trial Court and has rightly upheld the conviction of the applicant. The impugned judgment therefore does not call for any interference of this Court and is thus liable to be maintained. The revision may be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the judgment and order impugned dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara and judgment and order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the learned trial Court in Summary Criminal Case No.06 of 2022. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is seen that the applicant has been convicted under Section 294 of the IPC. Section 294 of the IPC REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 4 reads as under :- “294. Obscene acts and songs.— Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a)does any obscene act in any public place, or (b)sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid section which show that essential ingredients for the prosecution to establish an offence under Section 294 of the IPC, is that the offender has done an obscene act or sings or uttered words in a public place and secondly that such an act or utterance has caused on annoyance to others. P.W.-1 Vaishali Tembhurkar deposed that she witnessed the uttering of obscene words at the behest of the present applicant on the date of the incident, i.e., on 04.12.2021 at 7:30 p.m. However, in the cross-examination, she has admitted that there was an earlier incident dated 26.11.2021 between the complainant and the accused/applicant for which she had also gone to the police station for lodging report. She has also admitted that four days after the incident dated 26.11.2021, she had also lodged an offence against the present applicant. P.W-.1 deposed that the victim’s husband had reported the incident regarding the uttering of obscene words by the applicant. However, there is no other witnesses examined by the REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 5 prosecution to establish the second part. 9. The Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Mani @ Subramaniyam ..vs.. State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in 2026 INSC 719, was pleased to hold as under :- “11. We would first examine whether the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is made out against the appellant or not. Section 294 IPC reads as follows: “294. Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” (emphasis supplied) A plain reading of this Section shows that in order to secure a conviction under Section 294 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove two essential ingredients. First, the offender has done an obscene act in a public place or has sung, recited, or uttered any obscene word, ballad or song in or near any public place. Secondly, such an act or utterance has caused annoyance to others.” 10. The prosecution has failed to establish the second part of Section 294 of the IPC, it pertains to annoyance caused to others. No witness is examined to prove the other ingredients that it caused annoyance to others. The witnesses only deposed about the incident dated 04.12.2021 at 7.30 p.m. in which the incident of obscene act and utterance of obscene words were allegedly given by the REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 6 applicant. Thus, even though to some extents, it can be said that first ingredients of Section 294 of the IPC is established by the complainant/Vaishali Tembhurkar that the applicant had uttered obscene words. However, the other ingredients that the same has caused annoyance to the others, is not established by the prosecution. 11. The Investigating Officer, Akbar Bashir Pathan, was also examined by the prosecution. The investigating officer categorically admitted in his cross-examination that there was a previous enmity between the applicant and the complainant. Thus, the accused has been able to successfully bring the case of the prosecution into the category of a doubtful case. The defence has been able to bring its case with the realm of probabilities. 12. The witness, Shuddhodhan Meshram’s testimony shows that he was called upon to act as a panch for preparing a panchanama. The panch clearly states that it was Kaushik Mancharam Ambade who had abused the victim in obscene words and not the applicant, Jaigopal Mansaram Ambade. The prosecution has failed to seek any permission to cross-examine the aforesaid panch witness even though he has turned hostile. 13. Thus, taking into consideration the overall testimony of REVN No.174.2025 Judgment.odt 7 all the witnesses and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani @ Subramaniyam (supra), it appears that both the learned Courts below have committed an error in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC. The same cannot be allowed to stand. This is a fit case for interference to correct the error. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order:- ORDER i) The revision is allowed. ii) The judgment and order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2023 and judgment and order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni in Criminal Case No.06 of 2022, are hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The applicant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC. iv) Bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 12:53:22