1 APPLN5335.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5335 OF 2016
1. Sandeep S/o. Popat Thorat,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Private Service,
R/o. Wadgaonpan, Tq. Sangamner,
District : Ahmednagar.
2. Jijabai W/o. Popat Thorat,
Age : 66 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. As above. … Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Police Inspector,
Sangamner Taluka Police Station,
Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.
3. Vandana W/o. Rajkumar Saroj,
Age : 36 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Wadgaon-Pan, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar. … Respondents
……….
Mr A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the applicants
Mrs P. V. Diggikar, APP for respondent/State
Mr P. P. Khandagale Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 3
………….
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22.08.2017.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.09.2017.
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
2 APPLN5335.2016
JUDGMENT (Per A. M. Dhavale, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal at admission
stage.
2. This as an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report bearing
Crime No. I-43/2015 registered with Sangamner Taluka Police
Station, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, on 09.03.2015, for the
offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 354, 504 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and Sections 3(a) 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter
referred to as “POSCO Act”).
3. Heard Shri. A. N. Nagargoje, learned counsel for the
applicant, Mrs P. V. Diggikar, learned APP for respondents No. 1 2
and Shri. P. P. Khandagale Patil, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.
4. The applicant seeks quashing of FIR on the ground that the
FIR is filed on account of enmity and previous litigations between the
applicant his family members with Shrinath Thorat, with whom the
husband of informant is serving as a Waiter.
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
3 APPLN5335.2016
5. It is claimed that, the FIR is false, there is no medical
evidence, the witnesses are not supporting the informant and the
victim girl has given statement showing that they do not want to
prosecute the said FIR.
6. The facts relevant may be stated as follows:
On 09.03.2005, Vandana, a labourer lodged FIR at
Sangamner Police Station against the applicant. As per FIR, on
08.03.2015 (on the earlier day) at about 4:00 p.m., she and her 10
year old daughter had gone to forest for cutting fire wood. Her
daughter was sitting at some distance beneath a tree while she was
cutting fire wood. At about 4:30 p.m., she heard screaming of her
daughter. Initially, she did not pay attention but when her daughter
again raised shouts then she saw one person sleeping over her
daughter and immediately rushed towards them. She saw, skirt of her
daughter was lifted and her nicker was removed, her top was also
lifted. She removed that person from the person of her daughter and
identified him to be Sandeep, relative of the owner of the hotel. At
that time, the applicant’s mother Jijabai Thorat came from her back
side and she pulled her by her hair and threatened her that, if she
would continue to work in the hotel of Shrinath Kondaji Thorat, she
would be treated in the same manner and she was warned not to
work there. When she made inquiry with daughter S, she told her
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
4 APPLN5335.2016
that the applicant Sandeep had hugged her, fell her down, gagged
her mouth, lifted her skirt and removed her nicker. Thereafter
Sandeep took off his pant underwear and was inserting his penis in
her vagina and was pressing her chest and she was suffering pains in
the urinary track. The informant noticed swelling on the private part
of her daughter. She brought her home and narrated the incident to
her husband, who came late on that day. Thereafter, they narrated
the incident to the hotel owner Shri. Shrinath Kondaji Thorat. They
were taken to one advocate and thereafter they came to Police
Station and she lodged FIR.
7. The record shows that, the medical examination was
conducted on 09.03.2015 at 2:15 p.m. There is absolutely no medical
corroboration to the story of rape. The medical certificate discloses
no injuries on private parts or on the entire body of the victim girl.
Her hymen was intact.
8. The samples of blood, semen and clothes of the victim girl
and the applicant were forwarded to the office of Chemical Analysis
and the chemical analysis revealed no semen in the swab and smear
of the victim girl. No blood was detected on skirt, top, knicker of the
victim girl or on pant and shirt of the applicant. Blood was found
only on the underwear of the applicant.
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
5 APPLN5335.2016
9. On 15.03.2016, the informant was forwarded to Judicial
Magistrate First Class, for recording her statement u/s 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. She has stated that, she was not
interested in prosecuting the FIR against the applicant and his mother
and she had no complaint against them.
10. The statement of the victim girl was recorded late on
21.08.2017. The victim girl has given a statement that, her
statement was recorded in the court but she was not remembering
what was her earlier statement. She stated that, on 08.03.2015, the
applicant had dashed her and she assumed that he deliberately gave
a dash and hence, due to misunderstanding, her mother has given a
report to that effect. No incident had taken place as disclosed in the
FIR. On 11.03.2015, a statement of victim girl was recorded before
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. That time, she has stated that
when her mother was cutting fire wood and she was sitting
underneath the tree, one person came with an old lady. The old lady
started beating her mother and Sandeep/the applicant herein
outraged her modesty. He had raised her ghagra and removed her
nicker. He had inserted his finger in her vagina. He had removed his
pant underwear and had inserted his private part in her vagina and
she had suffered pains. Then her mother came to rescue her and
then the said person ran away. Her mother had tried to chase him
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
6 APPLN5335.2016
but he had fled away.
11. The applicant has filed records of previous litigation
between him and Shrinath Kondaji Thorat. Admittedly, the
informant’s husband was serving in a hotel run by Shrinath Kondaji
Thorat. The applicant’s mother Jijabai had lodged FIR on 04.12.2014
against Shrinath Kondaji Thorat, his brother Sahebrao Anandrao
Thorat and two children of Sahebrao. It was alleged in the said FIR
that, the said persons had forcibly entered into the field of Jijabai and
removed pomegranate trees and a motor pump installed therein and
caused loss to the tune of Rs. 20-25 lakhs.
12. The applicant’s mother again lodged FIR on 07.12.2014
alleging therein that Shrinath and his 8-10 accomplice had forcibly
entered in her house and assaulted her her sons Vikas Sandeep.
There are also allegations in the said FIR that, Shrinath had outraged
her modesty by pressing her breasts and had intimidated Jijabai and
her sons. On the basis of the said information, the crime was
registered bearing C.R. No. I-152/2014 with Sangamner Police
Station.
13. The applicant’s father had filed Regular Civil Suit
No.150/2015 against Sahebrao and 9 others including Shrinath
Kondaji Thorat for measurement, removal of encroachment and
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
7 APPLN5335.2016
perpetual injunction. The applicant’s mother again lodged a report
on 08.03.2015 against Shrinath Kondaji Thorat, the informant and
some others about assault, abusing and intimidation to her.
14. The investigation shows that, two lady witnesses were
present in the said field at the time of incident and both have not
seen anything as described in the FIR.
15. The applicant had, on 09.03.2015, given a statement that,
on the day of the incident at about 12:30 p.m., he and his mother
had gone to Police Station and had given a complaint. They were
there upto 4:00 pm and thereafter they had gone to his maternal
aunt Sau. Kere where they were present upto 6:00 pm. The police
recorded statement of Shakuntala Kere, who stated that at the
relevant time, the accused and his mother were present in her house.
Call Detail Records (CDR) collected discloses applicant’s contact
number being 7350405771. CDR collected is not of the relevant
period. The incident took place on 08.03.2015 whereas; the CDR
collected is of March-2016. The Police have also collected copy of
one complaint given by Jijabai Thorat against five persons including
the informant and Shrinath Kondaji Thorat on 08.03.2015 at 04:30
pm at Sangamner Police Station. The Police have submitted charge-
sheet against Shrinath Thorat.
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
8 APPLN5335.2016
16. In short, the statement of the victim and the FIR of her
mother are not supported by the witnesses who were present in the
field. The medical examination did not disclose any injury on the
person of the victim girl aged 11 years. No signs of rape or attempt
to commit rape were found. The informant and her daughter have
given supplementary statement denying their earlier statements/FIR.
17. No doubt, the alleged offences are quite serious, however,
in the light of the facts referred herein above, we find that the FIR
appears to be filed for false implication of the applicant. The
subsequent statement of the informant and the victim girl discloses
that the chances of conviction in this case are bleak. We rely upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tameezuddin @
Tammu Vs. State of (Nct), 2009 (15) SCC 566, wherein in para 9 it is
observed thus:
“9. It is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the
prosecutrix must be given predominant
consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to
be accepted even if the story is improbable and
belies logic, would be doing violence to the very
principles which govern the appreciation of
evidence in a criminal matter. We are of the
opinion that story is indeed improbable.”::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::
9 APPLN5335.2016
18. We find that, the continuation of this proceeding would be
abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the FIR deserves to
be quashed. Hence, we are inclined to allow the application and pass
the following order.
ORDER
(I) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(II) First Information Report bearing Crime No. I-43/2015
registered against the applicants with Sangamner Taluka
Police Station, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar on
09.03.2015, for the offences punishable under Sections
376(1), 354, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(a)
4 of the POSCO Act, is hereby quashed.
. Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
sgp
::: Uploaded on – 04/09/2017 07/09/2017 02:06:21 :::