Rosita Fernandes v. State Thr. Public Prosecutor And ANR

2025:BHC-GOA:1488 CRIR 34 of 2022 Jose

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2022 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2022 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2022 ROSITA FERNANDES ... APPLICANT

Versus

STATE THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.35 OF 2022 ROSITA FERNANDES ... APPLICANT

Versus

STATE THR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS Ms. Vidhati Shetye, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.

Shailendra G.

Bhobe, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Adarsh Valavolkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

DATED :- 12th August, 2025 P.C.:

1. Both these revisions arise from two orders dated 17.12.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Margao in Criminal Appeal Nos.31/2021 and 32/2021. The Petitioner is the original Complainant and the wife of the Accused, Respondent No.2 herein. By the two orders passed in the appeals by the Sessions Court, the Judgments and Orders of acquittal in two Criminal Cases Nos. 18/S/2018 and 12th August, 2025

CRIR 34 of 2022 5/S/IPC/2018 filed by the Complainant against the Respondent No.2 have been confirmed.

2. After perusing the two Judgments challenged herein in both these revision applications, the Judgments of acquittal rendered by the Magistrate in both the criminal complaints cannot be termed as being based upon any finding that is perverse or a finding contrary to the evidence on record. In Criminal Case No.18/S/2018, the Accused was charged of the offence under Section 341 IPC while in Criminal Case No.5/S/IPC/2018, the Accused was charged under Section 427 and 380 of IPC. In both these cases, the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence in great detail, and arrived at the conclusion that neither of the charges have been proved. In an appeal filed by the Complainant before the Sessions Court against both orders of the Magistrate, the Appellate Court has reconsidered the evidence and confirmed the findings arrived at by the Magistrate. No perversity can be found in the findings arrived at, either by the Magistrate or by the Appellate Court in these cases. No case is made out for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Revision applications stand dismissed. No costs. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

Signed by: JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 12/08/2025 16:45:35 12th August, 2025