1 apeal657of2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 657 OF 2010
Shrikant s/o. Sukhdeo Borkar,
aged about 28 years, Occ. Driver,
R/o.Kasturba Nagar, Nagpur …APPELLANT
…V E R S U S…
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Jaripatka,
Tahsil District Nagpur …RESPONDENT
——————————————————————————————-
Ms. Ankita Sarkar, counsel (Appointed) for appellant.
Mr. N.H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
—————————————————————————————–
CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE OF DECISION: 02.02.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenge is to the judgment and order dated
30.7.2009 rendered by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur
in Sessions Trial 402 of 2008, by and under which, the appellant –
accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 376
of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and is sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of
Rs.3,000/- and is further convicted for offence punishable under
section 323 of IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months and is also convicted for the
offence punishable under section 342 of the IPC and is sentenced
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
2 apeal657of2010
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2 Heard Smt. Ankita Sarkar, the learned counsel for the
appellant – accused and Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.
3 The prosecution case, as is unfolded during the course
of the trial is thus:
The prosecutrix is the sister in law (sister of wife) of the
accused. The prosecutrix was aged 19 years on the day of the
incident. The accused alongwith his wife and children were
residing in the house of his in-laws alongwith his mother in law
and the prosecutrix.
The incident occurred at 3.00 p.m. or thereabout on
1.6.2008. The accused asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to
the bore well to fetch water, the prosecutrix refused to do so. The
accused told the prosecutrix that she would have to stay with the
accused and he would not allow her to marry. The accused drove
out his mother in law and children out of the house, shut the door
from inside, and forced the prosecutrix to lay on the cot. The
prosecutrix protested and was slapped and assaulted with fist
blows on the face. Her salwar kurta and knickers were forcibly
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
3 apeal657of2010
removed. The accused then undressed and subjected the
prosecutrix to forcible sexual intercourse. The accused then
opened the door, called his mother in law and threatened her not
to disclose the incident to anybody, came out and locked the door
from outside. The wife of the accused Kavita returned home in the
evening to whom the incident was narrated through a open
window. Kavita called one Annutai and after she arrived, the door
was opened. Since the incident affected the health of the mother
of the prosecutrix, the report could not be lodged immediately and
was lodged the next day i.e. on 2.6.2008.
On the basis of the oral report Exh 18 and the printed First
Information Report Exh. 19, Jaripatka Police registered offence
punishable under section 376, 342, 323 and 506 of IPC.
Investigation ensued upon completion of which the charge sheet
was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate First Class – Court 7,
Nagpur who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh. 2) under section
343, 323, 376 of IPC, the accused abjured guilt and claimed to be
tried in accordance with law, the defence is of total denial.
4 The prosecution examined ten witnesses to bring
home the charge namely:
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
4 apeal657of2010
PW-1 Manisha Toliram Walde
the prosecutrix Exh.17
PW-2 Smt. Anutai Rohit Shende
Witness Exh.22
PW-3 Kavita Shrikant Borkar
The wife of the accused Exh.23
PW-4 Lilabai Toliram Walde
Panch on seizure panchanama Exh.25
PW-5 Dilip Gangaram Kadve
Panch on seizure panchanama Exh.27
PW-6 Avinash Vijay Dharne
Panch on seizure panchanama Exh-30
PW-7 Sangam Manikrao Tayade
Panch on seizure panchanama Exh 36
PW-8 Sewakram Raghoji Kore
Investigation officer Exh 42
PW-9 Dr.Sachin Sukhdeorao Wankhede Exh 46
PW-10 Rahul Libasrao Athwale
Investigation Officer Exh 56
The deposition of the prosecutrix (PW 1) is substantially
consistent with the First Information Report. She has deposed that
at 3.00 p.m. on 1.6.2008, the accused asked her to accompany him
to the bore well, on her refusal, she was beaten by the accused.
The mother of the prosecutrix and the children of the accused
were driven out of the house, the door was locked from inside and
the prosecutrix raped, is the deposition. The accused went out of
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
5 apeal657of2010
house, asked his mother in law and children to go inside the house
and locked door of the house from outside. It was only when
Kavita (PW 3) returned at 5.00 p.m. that the door was opened.
The incident was immediately disclosed by the prosecutrix to her
sister Kavita in presence of Annutai. PW 1 has also deposed that
the accused used to beat his wife Kavita, mother in law and the
prosecutrix herself and used to threaten them.
In the cross-examination, the statement that the accused
used to beat the prosecutrix and others is brought on record as an
omission. The suggestion that the accused had a quarrel with the
prosecutrix and her mother in law in the evening on the day of the
incident, is denied. The suggestion that due to the quarrel,
Annutai was called and a report lodged, is denied. The suggestion
that the mother in law of the accused was not taken to the
hospital, is denied. The suggestion that on the day of the incident
the accused was not present in the house throughout the day, is
denied.
5 Smt. Annutai Shende, who is a social worker is
examined as PW 2. She has corroborated the version of PW 1 that
she was called by Kavita telephonically and when she arrived at
the house of the in-laws of the accused, the door was bolted from
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
6 apeal657of2010
outside. She opened the door and found the prosecutrix, her
mother and children of the accused inside. She states that
everybody inside the house was weeping. She states that the
prosecutrix narrated the incident of assault and ravishment by the
accused. PW 2 advised the prosecutrix to lodge report at the
police station. PW 2 however states that she and the prosecutrix
went to the police station on the same day which is inconsistent
with the evidence on record that the report was lodged on the next
day of the incident.
Save and except the statement that the report was lodged
on the day of the incident, the testimony of PW 2 is not shaken in
the cross examination. Indeed, other than giving a few
suggestions to the effect that the incident was not narrated to her,
the core of the testimony has gone unchallenged. The testimony
that she arrived at the spot at the request of the wife of the
accused Kavita, found the door locked from the outside, that she
opened the door and everyone inside was weeping, has gone
unchallenged.
6 The wife of the accused Kavita is examined as PW 3.
She has corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix on every
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
7 apeal657of2010
material aspect. She has deposed that the prosecutrix made an
immediate disclosure to her that she was raped by the accused.
In the cross-examination, it is suggested to PW 3 Kavita that
the accused and the prosecutrix were in a relationship, which
suggestion is denied. She has also denied the suggestion that a
false report was lodged as the relationship between the accused
and the prosecutrix was exposed. The trend of the cross
examination, cryptic and ineffective as the cross examination is,
would reveal that the defence suggested consensual sexual
intercourse.
7 The mother in law of the accused Lilabai is examined
as PW 4. She has corroborated the version of the prosecution on
every material aspect.
The suggestion given to PW 4 that the accused was not
present at home on the day of incident, is denied. The
suggestion that on the day of the incident in the evening an
altercation took place between the accused and the PW 4 and
therefore, a false report was lodged on the next day, is denied.
PW 4 has denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix and the
accused were in a relationship.
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
8 apeal657of2010
8 PW 5 Dilip Kadve the panch to the seizure of the
clothes of the accused and the blood and semen sample did not
support the prosecution.
9 PW 6 Avinash Dharne admitted his signature on Exh.
31, Exh. 32 and Exh 33, but denied that any seizure was effected
in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross examined by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Nothing is elicited in the
cross examination of PW 6, the panch to spot panchanama and
seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix, to assist the prosecution.
10 Sangam Tayade (PW 7) who was examined to prove
the seizure memo as regards the blood samples etc, did not
support the prosecution, was declared hostile and cross examined
by the learned APP, to no result.
11 Sevakaram Kode (PW 8), police inspector sent the
seized articles for chemical analysis and filed the charge sheet.
12 Dr. Sachin Wankhede who examined the prosecutrix
on 2.6.2008, is examined as PW 9, who deposed that sexual
intercourse did take place although the exact time could not be
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
9 apeal657of2010
ascertained. The prosecutrix is used to sexual intercourse, is the
deposition. PW 9 noticed one small contusion of 1cm x 1 cm
below the left thy. It is brought on record by the accused that the
contusion can be caused by blunt object.
13 Rahul Athawale, the Investigating Officer (PW10) has
proved spot panchanama Exh. 54, seizure memos Exh. 21, Exh.56
and seizure panchanama Exh. 55. The minor omissions, which are
brought on record in the evidence of PW 1 are however not proved
through the evidence of PW 10.
14 In the statement recorded under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal procedure, the accused stated that his mother in
law and sister in law were insisting that the accused and his wife
Kavita leave the house. The accused stated in response to question
18 that the prosecutrix is a girl of “easy virtue”.
The submission of the learned counsel for the accused is
that the defence of false implication is more than probabilized.
The absence of injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix
would exclude the possibility of rape, is the submission. The 19
year old prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse and
consensual sex is a real possibility, is the submission of the learned
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
10 apeal657of2010
counsel Ms. Ankita Sarkar.
Per contra, the learned APP would submit that the fact that
prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse would not per se
exclude or rule out forcible sexual intercourse. The assertion of
the accused in response to question 18 in the statement recorded
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code statement is
that the prosecutrix is a girl of “easy virtue”. The learned APP
would submit, that the suggestion and insinuation must be
dismissed with the contempt that it deserves. Even a woman, who
is habituated to sexual intercourse is entitled to protect her dignity
and honour and nobody has a license to defile and pollute her
body, against her will and without her consent, is the submission.
The learned APP would submit that the ocular evidence is
consistent and there is no attempt made by the defence to
challenge the core or substratum of the prosecution version.
15 I am inclined to agree with the submission of the
learned APP that the suggestion and insinuation that the
prosecutrix was a girl of “easy virtue” and inference of consensual
sex must be drawn, merits out right rejection. The evidence of the
prosecutrix, which is more than amply corroborated by PW 2
Annutai, PW 3 Kavita who is the wife of the accused and PW 4
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
11 apeal657of2010
Lilabai the mother in law of the accused, is implicitly reliable,
creditworthy and confidence inspiring. Even if it is assumed,
arguendo, that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual
intercourse or that she and the accused were in a relationship,
nobody has the right to violet her body. The suggestion to the
contrary is an insult to womanhood.
16 I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence
on record, the submissions of the learned counsels and reasoning
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, and having done so, I do
not find any infirmity or error whatsoever in the judgment and
order of conviction.
(i) The appeal is sans substance and is rejected.
(ii) The accused is in custody since he was arrested
pursuant to non-bailable warrant issued by this Court vide
order 11.1.2018. The accused shall continue to be detained
in custody to serve the sentence awarded by the learned
Sessions Judge.
(iii) The accused shall be entitled to set of under section
428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iv) The appeal is dismissed.
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
12 apeal657of2010
(v) Fees of the appointed counsel are quantified at
Rs.5,000/-
JUDGE
05-02-2018 :
The appeal was heard on 29-01-2018. The judgment
was reserved and was to be pronounced on 02-2-2018.
2. Accordingly, the judgment was pronounced in the
open Court on 02-2-2018. The conviction and sentence awarded
by the learned Sessions Judge for the proved offence under
Section 376, Section 323, Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code
was confirmed.
3. However, the learned Counsel for the accused brought
to my notice, after the pronouncement of the judgment, that the
victim Manisha had placed on record an affidavit sworn on
29-1-2018 and filed in the Registry on 30-1-2018, the relevant
portion of which affidavit reads thus:
“1. That, deponent is the original complainant on whose
complaint the Crime No.189/08 came to be registered
against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections
323, 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
13 apeal657of2010ultimately led to the conviction of the appellant for the
offences u/s. 323, 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for
which he is sentenced to suffer RI for 3 months, 3 months
and 7 years respectively.
2. The deponent further submits that she is residing with
the wife and children of the appellant in the same house.
That after the death of mother of deponent, the appellant
and his dependent for her livelihood on the appellant and
his wife. Further the deponent states that she is in a
domestic relationship with the accused/appellant and from
the same, they also have a two and half years son named
Harshu. The deponent is apprehensive that if the appellant
is convicted; there is no one to take care of her and her
minor son.
3. The deponent further states that she had developed
intimacy with the appellant and the incident as alleged was
the outcome of that intimacy. The deponent states that she
was a consenting party. However under the threats and
pressure upon her from her mother, she lodged the
complaint and deposed against the appellant. The deponent
states that she does not have any grievance left against the
appellant. The deponent has no objection if the appeal is
allowed and the appellant is acquitted.”
4. The learned Counsel Ms. Ankita Sarkar, invites my
attention to the fact that this affidavit was inadvertently not
tagged alongwith the record by the Registry. The submission of the
learned Counsel is factually correct. Enquiry reveals that the
affidavit was not tagged alongwith the record and was, therefore,
not considered by me when I pronounced the judgment. The
affidavit, as of fact, is tagged with the record after the
pronouncement of the judgment.
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
14 apeal657of2010
5. The learned Counsel Ms. Ankita Sarkar, would
submit, that the statutory scheme of the proviso to Section 376 of
the IPC, as existing before 2013 Amendment, confers a discretion
in the Court to award a sentence less than the minimum for
adequate and special reasons. The fact that the victim and the
accused are residing together, albeit in love-in relationship and
that are blessed with two and half years son named “Harshu”
would constitute an adequate and special reason, is the
submission.
6. The deponent-complainant Ms. Manisha is present in
the Court alongwith the child. I have personally interviewed her
and I am satisfied that the affidavit is genuine and bona fide.
7. The learned Counsel have invited my attention to a
Three Judges’ judgment of the Apex Court in Shimbhu and Anr.
v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2014 SC 739. The Hon’ble
Apex Court has inter-alia held, that a compromise entered into
between the parties would not be an adequate and special reason
for awarding punishment lesser than the minimum prescribed. It
would be apposite to refer to the following observations of the
Hon’ble Apex Court :
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
15 apeal657of2010
“22. Further, a compromise entered into between the
parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based
on which lesser punishment can be awarded. Rape is
a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence
against the society and is not a matter to be left for
the parties to compromise and settle. Since the Court
cannot always be assured that the consent given by
the victim in compromising the case is a genuine
consent, there is every chance that she might have
been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma
undergone by her all the years might have compelled
her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this
proposition will put an additional burden on the
victim. The accused may use all his influence to
pressurize her for a compromise. So, in the interest of
justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment
to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the
compromise arrived at between the parties in rape
cases to be a ground of the Court to exercise the
discretionary power under the proviso to Section
376(2) of IPC.”
8. The factual matrix in the backdrop of which the said
observations were made, must necessarily be looked into.
Ultimately, a judgment cannot be read as a statute. An affidavit
came to be filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court, on the basis of
which the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone
was prayed. The affidavit filed by the prosecutrix before the
Hon’ble Apex Court purported to state that the prosecutrix, who
was then 16 years old, was a consenting party to the sexual
intercourse and that she had entered into a compromise with the
accused since the accused belonged to a neighbouring village and
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
16 apeal657of2010
also in view of the fact that the prosecutrix is happily married
since January, 1999.
The Hon’ble Apex Court noted after perusing the
affidavit that the affidavit contained two pages and the deponent
had signed in Hindi and that too only on the last page. The
Hon’ble Apex Court took a resume of the judgments holding the
field and then made observations in paragraph-22 which are
reproduced supra.
9. What is discernible from the enunciation of law is,
that the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise and that due
to passage of time or the prosecutrix being a happily married
woman, does not constitute adequate and special reasons within
the meaning of proviso to Section 376(2) of the IPC.
10. The learned Counsel have brought to my notice a Two
Judges’ judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindra vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2015 SC 1369 in which the
Hon’ble Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period already
undergone by invoking the proviso to Section 376(2) of IPC. The
Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration that the incident took
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
17 apeal657of2010
place 20 years ago and that the victim and the accused have
entered into a compromise.
11. In view of the Larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, I am not inclined to hold that compromise in itself
would constitute adequate and special reason for awarding
sentence less than the minimum. However, in the case at hand, the
facts are poignant and rather unusual. The prosecutrix, who is the
younger sister of the wife of the accused and the accused are in
live-in relationship. The prosecutrix is residing with her sister and
the accused. The prosecutrix and the accused are blessed with
two and half year old child. I have interviewed both the
prosecutrix and her sister, who are present in the Court. Both, the
prosecutrix and her sister have informed the Court that there is no
other person to take care of the prosecutrix and her son and the
legally wedded wife of the accused and her children. They would
submit, that if the punishment is not reduced to already
undergone, they would face restitution.
12. In the peculiar facts of the case, I am inclined to hold
that there do exist adequate and special reasons for awarding
sentence less than the minimum. I may reiterate, that the
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
18 apeal657of2010
compromise between the prosecutrix and the accused or that in
the affidavit the prosecutrix states that the sexual act was
consensual, has not weighed with me in concluding that there
exist adequate and special reason. What as weighed with me is
that the prosecutrix and the accused are in live-in relationship and
are blessed with a two and half year child and the accused is the
only bread earner. The prosecutrix is unemployed. If the accused is
sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment, the prosecutrix and
the child would be virtually on the street.
13. The affidavit which was placed on record was not
brought to my notice due to error on the part of the Registry of
this Court. It is axiomatic, that the mistake of the Registry ought
not to prejudice the accused. In view of the position of the law pre
2013 Amendment, the accused was entitled to point out to this
Court the existence of adequate and special reasons for awarding
sentence less than the minimum. The accused and his Counsel
were deprived of the right to effectively address the Court on said
aspect. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Vishnu Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 2011
SC 1232, I consider it fit to recall the judgment and order dated
02-2-2018 only to the extent of the sentence imposed.
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::
19 apeal657of2010
14. While maintaining the conviction of the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 376, Section 323 and
Section 342 of the IPC, I alter the sentence awarded under Section
376, Section 323 and Section 342 of the IPC and reduce the same
to already undergone in view of the existence of adequate and
special reasons noted supra.
15. The judgment and order dated 02-02-2018 is recalled
to this limited extent and the sentence for offence punishable
under Section 376, Section 323 and Section 342 of the IPC is
reduced to already undergone.
16. The accused be released from custody unless he is
required in any other case.
JUDGE
RS Belkhede, PA
::: Uploaded on – 07/02/2018 08/02/2018 01:12:51 :::