Sidharam Sambhaji Suryavanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 December, 2017

Megha 205_apeal_1293_2011.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1293 OF 2011

Sidhram Sambhaji Suryavanshi …Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
…..
Ms Nasreen Ayubi, appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent -State.

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED: 7th DECEMBER, 2017.

JUDGMENT :-

The Appellant, who was an accused (hereinafter referred to

as ‘accused’) in Sessions Case No.678 of 2010 has challenged the

judgment dated 29th August, 2011 whereby the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune, held him guilty of offences punishable under

Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in

respect of offence under Section 376 of the IPC and rigorous

imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 506

of the IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

Megha 1/5

::: Uploaded on – 12/12/2017 13/12/2017 01:05:41 :::
Megha 205_apeal_1293_2011.doc

2. The accused is the step father of the victim girl. It is the

case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix is the daughter of one

Bhimabai. The husband of Bhimabai had deserted her and her

daughter. Subsequently, said Bhimabai married the accused and

started residing with him alongwith her minor daughter. It is the case

of the prosecution that the accused had committed rape on prosecutrix

being his step daughter. Bhimabai, mother of the prosecutrix lodged

the FIR, pursuant to which Crime No.157 of 2010 under Sections 376

and 506 of the IPC came to be registered against the accused. The

victim was examined by the Medical Officer at Sasoon Hospital. PW5

Rajendra Giri-PSI arrested the accused, recorded the statements of the

witnesses and on completing the investigation, submitted the charge

sheet.

3. The case being sessions triable, the same was committed to

the Court of Sessions at Pune. The charge was explained to the

accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

prosecution examined five witnesses. The statement of the accused

was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence of the

accused was that of total denial. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Pune, after appreciating the evidence on record held the

Megha 2/5

::: Uploaded on – 12/12/2017 13/12/2017 01:05:41 :::
Megha 205_apeal_1293_2011.doc

accused guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC

and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the conviction

and sentence, the accused has preferred this Appeal.

4. Heard Ms Nasreen Ayubi, learned counsel for the accused

and Mr. P.H. Gaikwad, learned APP for the Respondent -State. Perused

the records.

5. The evidence of PW1-Bhimabai, indicates that the

prosecutrix is her daughter from her first marriage. Her husband-

Sikander Kamble had deserted her and thereafter she married the

accused- Sidharam Suryavanshi and started residing with him

alongwith her minor daughter. She has stated that the prosecutrix was

born on 27.11.2004 and at the relevant time she was about 6 years of

age. She has stated that she used to sleep on cot with her younger

daughter while prosecutrix used to sleep on floor alongwith the

accused. She has stated that during the intervening night of 15 th April,

2010 and 16th April, 2010 at about 2.00 a.m. she found that the

accused was lying over her minor daughter. She has stated that the

accused had removed his underwear as well as the underwear of the

prosecutrix. When she questioned the accused he shouted at her and

Megha 3/5

::: Uploaded on – 12/12/2017 13/12/2017 01:05:41 :::
Megha 205_apeal_1293_2011.doc

intimidated her. In the next morning her daughter complained of

abdominal pain. She informed about the incident to her neighbour

Padmini, who examined the private part of prosecutrix, which

appeared to be reddish in colour. Therefore, Bhimabai went to Dapodi

Police Station and lodged the FIR, which is at Exh.-11.

6. PW4- Padmini who is neighbour of the first informant has

confirmed that on 16.4.2010 at about 9.00 a.m. PW1-Bhimabai had

informed her about the incident. She has stated that she had

questioned the prosecutrix, who appeared to be frightened. She has

stated that the prosecutrix had narrated that her father had pulled her

nicker upto her knees and penetrated his penis in her private part and

had sexual intercourse with her.

7. PW3-Dr. Milind Waghmare had examined the prosecutrix.

He has deposed that the victim was about six years of age. He has

stated that genital examination of the victim showed that hymen was

completely torn with perihymonal inflammation with tenderness. The

Doctor has opined that there was evidence of penetrative vaginal

intercourse. He has produced medical examination report at Exh.-19.

Megha 4/5

::: Uploaded on – 12/12/2017 13/12/2017 01:05:41 :::
Megha 205_apeal_1293_2011.doc

8. The prosecutrix has also deposed that on the relevant night

she was sleeping with the accused, who is her step father. She had

confirmed that the accused had removed her underwear and had

inserted his private part in her vagina.

9. The evidence on record proves beyond reasonable doubt

that the accused had sexual intercourse with his step daughter, who at

the relevant time was six years of age. The medical evidence also

proves that the hymen of the victim was completely torn with

perihymonal inflammation and thus corroborates the evidence of PW1

and the prosecutrix.

10. The evidence adduced by the prosecution therefore proves

beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant herein had committed

rape on his minor step daughter, who at the relevant time was barely

six years of age. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge are

based on evidence on record. There is neither any illegality or

perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Judge. The Appeal

has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

Megha 5/5

::: Uploaded on – 12/12/2017 13/12/2017 01:05:41 :::

Leave a Comment

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