crapeal103of02.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.103 OF 2002
Bandu s/o. Maroti Dupare,
aged about 26 yars,
R/o. Baranz Maksa,
Police Station Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur ……. APPELLANT
…V E R S U S…
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Bhadrawati …… RESPONDENT
——————————————————————————————-
Mr. M.P. Lala Mr. R.N. Patil, Counsels for Appellant.
Mrs.M.H. Deshmukh, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent /State.
——————————————————————————————-
CORAM
:ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE
:18 th
SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant assails the judgment and order dated
8.1.2002 in Sessions Trial 113 of 1996 delivered by the 3 rd District
Sessions Judge, Chandrapur by and under which the appellant
(hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) is convicted of offence
punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 2
short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five
years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-.
2 The genesis of the prosecution case is the report
dated 11.1.1996 lodged by the prosecutrix inter alia stating that
on 10.1.1996 – Wednesday at 6 p.m., she went to Bhadrawati
being a weekly market day. The prosecutrix was in the weekly
market till 7.30 p.m. and then her brother Suryabhan Dongre
dropped the prosecutrix near the field of one Vitthal Punvatkar on
bicycle. Suryabhan Dongre left and the prosecutrix was walking
towards the village Baranj when she was accosted by the accused
near the “Bodi” (a small pond or reservoir) located on the rear
side of the school. The accused lifted the prosecutrix from behind
and started taking her towards Bodi. The prosecutrix raised an
alarm, the accused pressed her mouth, made the prosecutrix fall
down, threatened her with the physical harm, undressed her with
one hand and at that time the prosecutrix resisted and kicked the
accused with both feet. The oral report states that despite the
resistance, the accused committed forcible intercourse and then
ran away but not before threatening the prosecutrix that if the
incident is disclosed, she shall be dealt with appropriately. The
oral report states that incident took place at 8.30 p.m. and then
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 3
the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband and
alongwith her husband came to the police station to lodge report.
The oral report is at Exh. 14 and the First Information Report
which is registered on the basis of oral report is at Exh. 37.
3 The investigation culminated into chargesheet being
submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrawati
who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chandrapur. The
learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh. 10, the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution
examined as many as ten witnesses. The defence as is discernible
from the text and tenor of the cross examination is of total denial
and then in the alternate, of a consensual sexual relationship.
4 Heard Mr. M.P. Lala Mr. R.N. Patil, the learned
counsels for the accused and Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.
5 The learned counsel for the accused submits that
evidence on record is grossly insufficient to bring home a charge
under section 376 of IPC. The learned counsel would submit that
while conviction can rest even on the uncorroborated testimony of
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 4
the prosecutrix, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be implicitly
reliable or confidence inspiring. The conduct of the prosecutrix is
not natural, is the submission. Shri. Lala, the learned counsel
invites my attention to the medical evidence on record to contend
that absence of injuries, in the factual matrix, is absolutely
inconsistent with the version of the prosecutrix that accused
committed forcible sexual intercourse. The learned counsel for
the accused would then submit that the fact that the prosecutrix
chose to visit the house of the accused rather than directly go to
the police station is not the normal human conduct. The learned
counsel would submit that there are too many gray areas in the
version of the prosecutrix for the conviction to rest on her
uncorroborated testimony. The learned counsel would further
submit that while the evidence must be weighed and not counted,
witnesses who could have thrown light on material aspects of the
prosecution version, have not been examined although cited in the
chargesheet as witnesses. Shri. Lala, the learned counsel would
submit that while whom to examine is the sweet choice of the
prosecution and the prosecution is not under any duty to examine
multiple witnesses to prove the same fact, failure to examine
witnesses who were available and whose testimony would have
unfolded the prosecution version and lent assurance or
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 5
corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix, fatal. An adverse
inference must be drawn against the prosecution for non-
examination of witnesses cited in the chargesheet, is the
submission.
6 Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, the learned APP would urge
that the testimony of the prosecutrix is more than amply
corroborated by the testimony of PW 2 Prakash Dahiwalkar and
PW5 Vitthal Punvatkar and the report of Chemical Analyzer Exh.
41. The learned APP would further urge that in the
circumstances, the oral report is lodged with promptitude. The
prosecutrix has disclosed to her family members at the earliest
opportunity that she was sexually assaulted. The absence of
injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix is of no significance
since the prosecutrix is a married woman with two children, is the
submission.
7 The learned counsel for the accused Shri. Lala did
make a serious attempt to persuade me to hold that the defence of
total denial must be accepted and that the very act of sexual
intercourse is not proved. For reasons spelt out infra, I am not
inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the accused that the
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 6
prosecution has not proved the sexual intercourse and that the
testimony of the prosecutrix must be discarded in entirety. The
learned counsel Shri. Lala then contend that even if it is assumed
arguendo that the accused committed sexual intercourse, the
relationship was obviously consensual.
8 In my opinion, the central issue for consideration is
whether the prosecution has ruled out the possibility that the
sexual intercourse committed by the accused was consensual. The
prosecutrix (PW1), states that she was working at N.T.P.C. till 6
p.m. in the evening and after finishing her labour work, she went
to Bhadrawati to make certain purchases in the weekly market.
She purchased vegetables and then went to the bus stop but there
was no bus available. It was then, that the prosecutrix met her
cousin brother Suryabhan Dongre. She requested Suryabhan
Dongre to drop her till Baranj Fata. Suryakant dropped the
prosecutrix till the field of Vitthal Punvatkar. The prosecutrix
started walking alone towards her house, the accused came on a
bicycle with one Machhindra Petkar and stopped the bicycle near
the prosecutrix. The accused got down, inquired with the
prosecutrix as to whether she had been to the market, Machhindra
proceeded towards his house on the bicycle and the prosecutrix
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 7
started walking, when the accused suddenly accosted her, the
prosecutrix started running towards a nearby brick kiln, the
accused came from behind and caught hold of her neck. The
prosecutrix further states that accused pressed her mouth by one
hand, pulled her towards a bush situated near the Bodi, made her
fall on ground undressed her and gagged her by inserting her
saree in her mouth as she had started shouting. She then states
that accused committed forcible sexual intercourse and fled from
the spot. She went home weeping, narrated the incident to the
mother of Vitthal (PW 3) and elder daughter Pratibha. She then
states that she went to the house of the accused and informed the
parents of the accused about the incident. She further states that
the parents of the accused told her not to go to the police station
and wait till the accused comes back. She further states that she
was present in the house of the accused when the accused
returned and then she confronted the accused as to why he did
such a thing and the accused replied arrogantly and asked her to
do whatever she could. It was only thereafter, that the prosecutrix
disclosed the incident to her husband and other persons from the
village and went to Police Station, Bhadrawati to lodge report
against the accused.
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 8
9 In paragraph 3 of the cross examination, the
prosecutrix admits that the house of the accused is located at a
distance of a two houses from her house. She admits that when
she reached her house, the family members asked her as to why
she came home late from the market. She denies the suggestion
that there was a quarrel between her and the husband and that
the husband voiced suspicion about her character. She denies the
suggestion that it was only in view of the suspicion of the husband
that she lodged a false report against the accused at the instance
of the husband. The effort of the defence is obviously to suggest
that the sexual relationship was consensual and the report was
lodged at the behest of the husband of the prosecutrix to ensure
stability of the marriage.
10 It is brought on record in the cross examination that
distance between the agricultural field of Vitthal Punvatkar and
the residence of the prosecutrix is 60 to 70 meters. The
prosecutrix admits that she did not request Machhindra Petkar
who is known to the prosecutrix, to drop her to her residence.
The prosecutrix admits the existence of thorny bushes near the
Bodi and that the terrain is rough. The prosecutrix admits that
despite the sexual intercourse for half an hour, there was no
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 9
tenderness in her private part.
11 I have no hesitation in concurring with the learned
Sessions Judge that the sexual intercourse is proved. The report
of the Chemical Analyzer which proves that the semen found on
the petticoat of the prosecutrix is of the same blood group as that
of the accused. This corroborates the version of the prosecutrix.
However, I am impelled to seek corroboration to the evidence of
the prosecutrix to the extent that the possibility of consensual
sexual intercourse is excluded from consideration. The evidence
of the prosecutrix, at any rate the entire evidence of the
prosecutrix, is not free from doubt. The conduct of the
prosecutrix in non disclosing the incident first to her husband or
then, disclosing the incident to her daughter and the mother of
PW 5, and going to the house of the accused to inform his parents,
does not appear to be natural and normal conduct of a similarly
placed woman. A woman who is subjected to a forcible sexual
intercourse and that too lasting for half an hour during which
period the woman states that she was resisting would ordinarily
disclose the incident to her husband and would rush to the Police
Station to lodge a report at the first available opportunity. The
version of the prosecutrix that she disclosed the incident to her
daughter and to the mother of PW5 and then she went to the
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 10
house of the accused is in my opinion not free from doubt and the
conviction can not rest on such uncorroborated evidence. The
prosecution has not brought on record, the circumstances in which
the mother of PW 5 was present in the residence of the
prosecutrix as the mother of PW 5 whom the discloser is allegedly
made is not examined as a witness although cited as a witness in
the chargesheet.
12 Since I am not inclined to agree with the learned APP
that evidence of the prosecutrix is implicitly reliable and can be
the basis of the conviction, I made an attempt to seek
corroboration from the other direct and indirect evidence on
record. Unfortunately, this is a glaring case where the prosecution
has not examined material witnesses who were cited in the
chargesheet and who could have amply corroborated the version
of the prosecutrix. May be the blame lies at the doorstep of the
both the investigator and the prosecutor. The prosecutrix states
that she was dropped near the field of Vitthal Punvatkar by her
cousin Suryabhan Dongre. However, Suryabhan has not been
examined. The version of the prosecutrix is that the accused
came alongwith one Machhindra Petkar on bicycle and then
Machhindra left alone. Machhindra is cited as a witness. He
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 11
could have corroborated the version of the PW1 and could have
thrown some light on the circumstances in which the prosecutrix
and the accused met. The failure of the prosecution to examine
Machhindra is inexplicable. According to the prosecutrix, she
went home and immediately disclosed the incident to her
daughter Pratibha and the mother of Vitthal. The mother of
Vitthal is cited as a witness and again for reasons not clear is not
examined. Pratibha, the daughter of the prosecutrix is also not
examined. The husband of the prosecutrix who is cited as a
witness in the chargesheet is again not examined. The learned
APP is absolutely right in contending that evidence must be
weighed and not counted and that the prosecution was under no
duty to examine multiple witnesses to prove the same fact. It is
true that whom to examine is ordinarily the sweet choice of the
prosecution. However, if material witnesses, who are cited in the
chargesheet, are suppressed and such suppression is an
impediment in clearing the doubt and in corroborating the
evidence of the prosecutrix, as in the case in hand, I have no
hesitation in opining that the counsel for the accused is right in
contending that an adverse inference against the prosecution can
be and must be drawn. Non examination of material witnesses on
vital aspects of the prosecution case, in the factual matrix of this
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::
crapeal103of02.odt 12
case is fatal.
13 The learned APP would invite my attention to the
enunciation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not a fetish and is only a guideline. The
learned APP would contend that the Courts must appreciate the
broad probabilities of the prosecution evidence in offences
involving outraging of modesty or sexual offences against woman.
There can not be any quarrel with the contention, in principle.
However, while proof beyond reasonable doubt can not be a
fetish, the golden rule that an accused is presumed to be innocent
till the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt is too deeply
entrenched in Indian criminal jurisprudence for this court to
sacrifice the liberty of the accused at the alter of suspicion,
however, strong the suspicion may be.
The Judgment impugned is set aside.
Appeal is allowed.
The accused is acquitted of offence punishable under
section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Bail bond shall stand discharged.
Fine paid by accused, if any, be refunded.
JUDGE
Belkhede
::: Uploaded on – 19/09/2017 21/09/2017 01:32:51 :::