Amarkant Shalikram Samrit vs State Of … on 7 July, 2017

Judgment

apeal211.01

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.211 OF 2001

Amarkant s/o Shalikram Samrit
Aged about 30 years,
R/o Bela, Tahsil and District Bhandara. ….. Appellant.

:: VERSUS ::

State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Bhandara. ….. Respondent.

Shri C.R. Thakur, Counsel for the appellant.
Ms T.H. Udeshi, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JULY 7, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is before this Court in view of his

conviction by learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions

Trial No.98 of 2000 dated 26.4.2001 for the offences punishable

under Sections 376, 170, 419, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

…..2/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

2

For the offence punishable under Section 376 of

the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of

Rs.3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer

further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

For the offence punishable under Section 170 of

the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

For the offence punishable under Section 419 of

the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer

further rigorous imprisonment of 1 month.

Insofar as for the offence punishable Section 506 of

the Indian Penal Code is concerned, no separate sentence was

given to the appellant.

…..3/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

3

2. I have heard learned counsel Shri C.R. Thakur for

the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms

T.H. Udeshi for the respondent/State. They took me through

in detail notes of evidence and other proved documents on

record.

3. The appellant was charged that in between

21.6.2000 to 27.6.2000 he pretended that he is a public servant

being C.I.D. police and in such assumed character committed

rape on the prosecutrix without her consent and thus

committed an offence punishable under Section 170 of the

Indian Penal Code. He was also charged that on 23.6.2000 and

26.6.2000 at Yeshwant Lodge, Tumsar and in the house of one

Tanu alias Tongare Bisen at Baba Ashram Ramtek committed

sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent

and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 376

READ  Shrishail Bhimsha Ghale, -vs- The State Of Mahrashtra on 27 August, 2007

of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged for the offence

…..4/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

4

punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code that

he committed rape pretending that he is the C.I.D. officer.

4. The first information report is at Exhibit 32. The

printed first information report is at Exhibit 33.

5. According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix was

married to one Vishwanath. It was her love marriage. Said

love marriage was not approved by her parents. After

marriage, she went to her matrimonial house. On next day of

her marriage, her husband left the house without informing

anybody. The prosecutrix made a wait for 8 days. However,

her husband failed to return. Her parents did not allow her to

stay with them. Therefore, she stayed for 2 days with one

Mandabai, who is her maternal aunt. Thereafter, she started

residing at Salebhata with her grandmother Barubai Kohale.

On 12.3.2000 a missing report was lodged by her in respect of

her husband in Lakhani Police Station. Thereafter, she gave a

…..5/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

5

report to the Apatgrasta Women Cell at Bhandara in the

month of April. In that context, she used to visit at Bhandara.

When on 22.6.2000 she had been to the Women’s Cell at

Bhandara, one person by name Samrit was sitting in whose

presence she revealed her name and address to the office.

6. As per the first information report, on 23.6.2000

appellant Samrit came to Salebhata. That time, prosecutrix

was residing with PW7 Kunda w/o Anandrao Raut, her sister

at Sakoli. There, appellant Samrit along with brother-in-law

of the prosecutrix Ghyanshyam Dharmaji Bhonde came.

There, appellant Samrit disclosed that he is a C.I.D. Police and

inquiry regarding her husband is entrusted to him and,

thereafter, she was taken by him on his scooter. Appellant

Samrit kept his scooter at Bhandara. Thereafter, by bus they

went to Sihora. Then in evening, they came to Tumsar and

resided at Yeshwant Lodge. A room in said Lodge was booked

…..6/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

6

stating name of prosecutrix as Smt. Samrit. In the night,

appellant Samrit had sexual intercourse with her. Then on

next day i.e. 24.6.2000, they left the Lodge. She was dropped at

Bhandara Bus Station. The prosecutrix came to the house of

READ  Sanjeeta Das vs Tapan Kumar Moahnty on 22 September, 2010

PW7 Kunda Raut at Sakoli. Then on 26.6.2000, appellant

Samrit again came and took the prosecutrix with him on the

pretext to go to Sihora. Thereafter, she was taken to Ramtek

in the house of one Bowa. There also, the physical contacts

were established with her against her wishes.

7. With this first information report, criminal law

was set into motion.

8. PW6 Dr. Mrs. Chhaya Ravindra Kapgate examined

the prosecutrix. She has proved medical certificate of the

prosecutrix which is on record at Exhibit 24. The evidence of

said doctor and the report clearly show that there were no

external injuries on the body of the prosecutrix. The doctor

…..7/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

7

also noticed that there were no injuries on her private parts.

The doctor also noticed that the prosecutrix was habituated

to sex.

9. According to PW10 prosecutrix, on 22.6.2000 she

had been to the Women’s Cell at Bhandara in connection with

enquiry of her husband. There, she was accompanied by PW1

Omkar Bhonde.

As per the evidences of PW1 Omkar and the

prosecutrix, in the said Cell appellant accused was sitting

there and he told Omkar that he is a C.I.D. Police Officer and

he showed one card. It was also informed him that the matter

about enquiry of missing husband is entrusted to him. As per

the evidences of PW1 Omkar and the prosecutrix, the

appellant introduced for the first time to them as an Officer.

10. The aforesaid important fact is totally absent from

the first information report of the prosecutrix. Further, from

…..8/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

8

the evidence of PW1 Omkar, it is clear that when statement of

the prosecutrix was recorded in his presence in the police

station. PW1 Omkar did not state from the witness box about

sexual assault on prosecutrix.

Further, even as per the prosecution case, the

appellant for the first time disclosed that he is a C.I.D. Officer

in the Women’s Cell at Bhandara. Not only that, it is the

evidence of PW1 Omkar and PW10 prosecutrix that time

other officers were present. However, no Officer from the

said Cell is examined by the prosecution to prove the fact of

presence of the appellant on 22.6.2000 in the Cell.

Also, even after arrest of the appellant, no attempt

READ  Ankush Bhiku Pandhare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2017

was made by the prosecuting agency to recover the identity

card, which according to the prosecution and other

prosecuting witnesses the appellant showed to them to make

them believe that he is a police officer.

…..9/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

9

11. From the evidences of PW3 Shailesh Yeshwantrao

Sakharwade, PW4 Yeshwant Dinaji Sakharwade, who is father

of PW3 Shailesh, and Lodge Register Exhibit 18, it is clear that

in the night of 23.6.2000 the appellant had stayed with the

prosecutrix in the said Lodge.

12. According to the prosecutrix, in the Lodge the

appellant committed sexual intercourse with her without her

consent. However, her evidence is totally silent that he

committed rape on her on the pretext that he being a Police

Officer he will try to help the prosecutrix in searching her

husband.

13. The evidences of PW10 prosecutrix, PW7 Kunda

Raut, and PW1 Omkar Bhonde are totally silent that when the

prosecutrix had occasions to meet them on 3 different dates.

She did not disclose to them that either under the pretext that

appellant Samrit is a Police Officer or under the threats given

…..10/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::
Judgment

apeal211.01

10

by him or without her consent the appellant has committed

sexual intercourse with her.

14. The prosecutrix version is not at all corroborated

by any of the witnesses. If the prosecutrix evidence does not

inspire confidence, the Court should look for corroborative

evidence. In the present case, looking to the conduct on the

part of the prosecutrix that she was having an opportunity to

disclose the fact of sexual assault on her, she chose not to

disclose to anybody.

15. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has not

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt warranting me to

pass the following order:

O R D E R

i) The criminal appeal is allowed.

ii) Judgment and order of conviction, passed by

…..11/-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::

Judgment

apeal211.01

11

learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions

Trial No.98 of 2000 dated 26.4.2001, is set aside.

iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offences

punishable under Sections 376, 170, 419, and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code.

iv) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

16.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

…../-

::: Uploaded on – 12/07/2017 14/07/2017 00:08:29 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *