11. cri wp 1512-18.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1512 OF 2018
Dhanraj Buddhasen Gupta .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
……………….
Appearances
Mr. Prosper D’Souza Advocate (appointed) for the Petitioner
Mr. Arfan Sait APP for the State
……………….
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J.
M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : JULY 4, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, A.C.J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. By Judgment Order dated 9.10.2014 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai in
Sessions Case No. 17 of 2012, the petitioner came to be
convicted and sentenced as under:-
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:34:58 :::
11. cri wp 1512-18.doc
Convicted Sentenced to
u/S
354 Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of
IPC Rs. 5000/-, in default, further R.I. for one month.
376 Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine
r/w of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, further R.I. for six months.
511
IPC
67(A) Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of
I.T. Act Rs. 25,000/-, in default, further R.I. for six months.
The petitioner was acquitted of the offence under
Section 306 of IPC.
Learned Sessions Judge directed that the sentences of
imprisonment under Section 354 and Section 376 r/w 511 of
IPC shall run concurrently whereas sentences of imprisonment
under Section 67(A) of I.T. Act shall run separately.
3. It is stated that the petitioner has undergone
imprisonment of seven years imposed on him under Section
376 r/w 511 of IPC. Through this petition, the petitioner is
praying that the fine amount be waived and he should be
granted remission of in default sentences.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:34:58 :::
11. cri wp 1512-18.doc
4. At this stage, we would like to state that the petitioner
has not preferred any appeal against the Judgment Order
dated 9.10.2014. In fact, the statement of the petitioner who
is in Nasik Road Central Prison has been recorded by the Jail
Authorities which shows that he has not preferred any appeal
against the Judgment Order dated 9.10.2014 wherein he
was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court. The said
statement is taken on record and marked “X” for
identification.
5. In order to consider whether the prayer of the petitioner
can be granted, it would be necessary to state a few facts:-
The Judgment Order of the Sessions Court and the
record shows that the petitioner was earlier residing near the
house of the deceased girl / prosecutrix. The deceased girl /
prosecutrix was the daughter of the complainant Smt. Suman.
The deceased girl and her siblings used to go to the house of
the petitioner to watch television. The complainant was doing
work of cutting extra threads of readymade garments with
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 5
::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:34:58 :::
11. cri wp 1512-18.doc
one cloth manufacturing company. She used to bring
readymade clothes to cut the extra thread and again return
those clothes to the company.
On 16.9.2011, the daughter of the complainant i.e the
prosecutrix aged about 14 years went to school. At about
6.30 p.m., the children including the prosecutrix returned
home. The prosecutrix started crying. On account of this, the
complainant made inquiry with her. Her daughter i.e the
prosecutrix replied that the accused (petitioner) under the
pretext of giving her Rs. 5/- took her to his house and
removed her clothes. Then he took her nude photographs on
his mobile phone, he caught hold of her and made her sleep
on the floor. He then slept on her person and tried to commit
wrong act with her. Therefore, she started raising shouts and
started crying. Then the petitioner released her. On hearing
this, the complainant scolded the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the
complainant left the house to return the clothes to the
company. When she returned back from the company along
with other clothes, she saw her daughter in burning condition
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 5
::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 08/07/2018 01:34:58 :::
11. cri wp 1512-18.doc
and neighbours had gathered at the spot. They then
extinguished the fire. On inquiry by the complainant, the
prosecutrix informed her that she herself had poured
kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. The
prosecutrix was taken to the hospital, however, she expired
during treatment.
6. Looking to the above facts, we are of the opinion that no
case is made out for reduction in fine amount or in default
sentence, hence, Rule is discharged.
7. Office to communicate this order to the petitioner who is
lodged in Nasik Road Central Prison.
[ M.S. SONAK, J ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on – 06/07/2018 08/07/2018 01:34:58 :::