1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 619 of 2017
Appellant : Hemraj s/o Fulchand Patle, aged about 41
years, Occ: Cultivator, resident of Soni, Tahsil
Goregaon, District Gondia
Versus
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra, through Police
Station Officer, Police Station, Goregaon,
District Gondia
Shri D. V. Mahajan, Advocate for appellant
Shri Harshal Dube, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 7th February 2018
Oral Judgment
1. This appeal questions the legality and correctness of the
judgment and order dated 13th December 2017 rendered in Sessions Trial
No. 151 of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia The learned
additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 448, 323, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and accordingly sentenced him to suffer different punishments. For
the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, sentence of rigorous
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
2
imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, rigorous
imprisonment for one month has been imposed. For the other offences,
sentences varying from seven years RI to one year RI and fine amounts
from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/- have been imposed.
2. The story of the prosecution goes as under:
The prosecutrix, aged about 40 years when the incident took
place, was present in her house in the night between 22.8.2013 and
23.8.2013 at village Soni, Tahsil Goregaon, District Gondia. In the
evening of 22.8.2013, she had attended 13 th day function, which was a
part of the last rites performed in respect of death of one Shrikrishna
Patle. There was also a kirtan organized in the night. After having dinner
at about 10.00 pm, the prosecutrix went to her room as she was not
keeping well and slept. In the adjoining room, her brother-in-law; sister-
in-law and mother-in-law had gone to sleep. Between 02.30 and 03.00
am, according to the prosecutrix, one person suddenly entered her room
and forced himself upon her. The prosecutrix at that time was sleeping
on the cot. He pressed her mouth and threatened her that if she resisted
or shouted, he would kill her. Thereafter that person committed sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix. By that time, the prosecutrix had
identified that person and he was the appellant. When the intercourse
was going on, husband of the prosecutrix entered the room and saw what
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
3
was going on inside the room. He shouted at the man i.e. the appellant.
The appellant started to run away. But, the husband of the prosecutrix
caught hold of him. By that time, the other relatives i.e. brother-in-law
and sister-in-law sleeping in the other rooms of the house, also came to
the room of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix alleged that because of loud
sound of kirtan and also the rain that was falling then, the shouts of the
prosecutrix could not be heard outside her room. But, as it happened,
her husband came to the room and rescued her from the assault that was
made upon her by the appellant. It is stated that the husband of the
prosecutrix at that time had gone outside the house to attend the kirtan in
the village. As it was a night time, the prosecutrix could not immediately
approach the police for lodging the report. Next day in the morning at
about 09.00 am, the prosecutrix along with her husband went to the
Police Station and lodged the report against the appellant. It was reduced
into writing and crime was registered against the appellant. Investigation
was commenced by the police; spot panchanama was prepared; necessary
seizures were made and the prosecutrix and appellant were sent for
medical examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
3. The appellant was prosecuted for the offences punishable
under Sections 448, 323, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
4
merits of the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that all the
offences stood proved and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the
appellant, as aforesaid. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant is
before this Court in the present appeal.
4. I have heard Shri D. V. Mahajan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Harshal Dube, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order
and so also the record of the case.
5. Now, the following points arise for my determination:
(1) Whether the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix was non-
consensual ?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant
committed offences of voluntarily causing simple hurt and criminal
intimidation ?’
(3) Whether any interference in the impugned judgment and
order is necessary ?
6. In the present case, evidence of the prosecutrix and her
husband is of great importance as the prosecutrix is a married woman,
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
5
aged about 40 years at the time of incident and her husband had actually
seen what was going on inside the room of the prosecutrix at the relevant
time. Therefore, it would be appropriate that we consider the testimonies
of these two witnesses first.
7. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 victim of crime or
the prosecutrix, one would find that her testimony cannot be believed for
what it says against the appellant. The reason being that, according to
her, when she was sleeping inside the room of her house, at about 2/2.30
am, the appellant entered the room and giving threat to her not to raise
any voice, the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her
and all this happened against the background of the door to the room of
the prosecutrix being not closed in that night, though usually she was in
the habit of keeping it closed and the other relatives like mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law were sleeping in different rooms, but
adjoining to the room of the prosecutrix, who could have immediately
rushed to the help of the prosecutrix, if sufficient alarm was raised.
8. The prosecutrix states that when she raised her voice, her
husband came to her room and caught red-handed the appellant
committing sinful act. She stated that thereafter her husband called her
sister-in-law, brother-in-law and mother-ion-law who, on such calling,
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
6
arrived at the scene of crime. Her such evidence is, however, inconsistent
with the evidence of her husband PW 4 Yograj and PW 2 Geeta, the
sister-in-law of the prosecutrix. Inconsistencies, of course, are of different
nature, but they are there and are material, thereby creating doubt over
the credibility of PW 1 prosecutrix.
9. While prosecutrix states that when she raised voice, her husband
came to her room, PW 4 Yograj does not say so. According to him, he
was busy attending Kirtan in that night and in between 2 am and 3 am,
he came home to relieve himself when he heard some noise which he
has described in Marathi as “Ghud Ghud”. He does not say that this
sound was of shouts of his wife, as she has deposed before the Court.
This is a material contradiction with the evidence of PW 1, the prosecutrix
indicating that her husband entered her room because she raised shouts.
Even PW 2 Geeta, sister-in-law of the prosecutrix sleeping in the adjoining
room does not say that she heard shouts of prosecutrix and so, she rushed
to the room of the prosecutrix. Now, this sound “Ghud-Ghud” described
by PW 4 Yograj is very different from the sound of shouts. It is quite like
a clatter sound which comes out when two or many hard objects strike
each other and it is certainly not a sound of hostility or disapproval, which
is very much there in the shouts. Remarkably, he does not say that this
noise was in the nature of some sort of help sought or alarm raised by the
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
7
prosecutrix. PW 4 Yograj further states that when he entered the room,
he saw the appellant as lying on the person of the prosecutrix and that at
that time, the appellant had pressed the mouth of his wife and then he
goes on adding that he also saw the appellant as having forcible sexual
intercourse with her. He then states that at that time, he managed to
catch hold of the appellant. He further states that he shouted for help
and thereafter his brother, wife of his brother, his sister, his mother and
his nephew came to the spot of incident and with their help, he caught
hold of the appellant.
10. PW 2 Geeta, wife of brother of PW 4 Yograj, however, gave a
different version. She states that due to some uproar heard from the
room of the prosecutrix, she and her husband woke up and went to the
room of the prosecutrix. Then, according to her version, she and her
husband saw the appellant and the prosecutrix having sexual intercourse.
She has further stated that the prosecutrix came to them in a frightened
state. She states that when she and her husband asked the victim as to
what happened, she told them that the appellant threatened to kill her if
she raised her voice and then pressing her mouth, he did sexual
intercourse with her. Her such evidence, however, is contrary on a
material aspect of the case as to how she and her husband arrived at the
spot of incident. The evidence of PW 4 Yograj shows that on his shouting
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
8
for help, his brother and wife of his brother came to the spot while
evidence of PW 2 Geeta discloses that she and her husband went there on
hearing some unusual sound. The unusual sound as described by PW 2
Geeta was in the nature of “uproar” while the husband of the prosecutrix
called it “Ghud-Ghud” (clatter). Though there is a difference in the
description of sound given by these two witnesses, there is unanimity
between them on the point that they reached room of the prosecutrix not
because they heard her alarm calls indicated by her shouts as she would
want us to believe, but for the reason that they heard some sounds,
unusual in their nature, which ignited their curiosity to ascertain their
source. Even the sound of “uproar” described by PW 2 Geeta was not an
alarm call but a heavy sound which comes out due to friction of hard
objects.
11. The evidence of these material witnesses of the prosecution
discussed above would show that there is no consistency between their
versions on material aspects of the case. Admittedly, the house of the
prosecutrix had different rooms and all these rooms were occupied by
different relatives of the prosecutrix. Admittedly at the time of incident,
husband of the prosecutrix was away from home as he was busy
attending recitation of kirtan and that he happened to come back home
by chance when he noticed some sort of noises coming from the room of
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
9
the prosecutrix. These noises, it appears, made PW 4 Yograj curious and
that is why he went to his room to ascertain the cause of those noises. He
has described those noises as “Ghud Ghud”. Even PW 2 Geeta has heard
these noises which she described as “uproar”. None of these witnesses is
saying that those noises were in the nature of alarm or shouts for help.
When so many relatives were sleeping in the adjoining rooms, it was very
easy for the victim to put up a good deal of resistance to the appellant and
if she had, effective assistance would surely had come her way. No doubt,
in that night, sound of kirtan had filled the air, but as PW 2 Geeta and
PW 4 Yograj had still heard those queer sounds coming from the room of
the prosecutrix, there is no gainsaying that kirtan sound had drowned the
shouts for help raised by the prosecutrix. In fact, as the evidence of PW 2
and PW 4 would show, there were no shouts raised for help by the
prosecutrix.
12. The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has admitted that
door to her house on that day was open, although she would keep the
door closed. The prosecutrix has not explained as to why on the day of
incident, the door to her room was not closed by her. Added to it, are
those odd sounds heard by husband of the prosecutrix as well as her
sister-in-law emanating from the room of the prosecutrix. To my mind,
these facts are sufficient indicators of the possibility of consensual sexual
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
10
intercourse between the prosecutrix and the appellant. This inference in
the present case is further strengthened by the fact that the husband of
the prosecutrix was out of his house as he had gone to attend kirtan being
held in the night and that it was not expected of him to come back home
so early. Usually, kirtans are held for the entire night. The husband of the
prosecutrix also states that as he wanted to ease himself, he visited his
house. It would mean that the husband of the prosecutrix had no
intention to come back home for the purpose of sleeping. Thus, the visit
of the husband of prosecutrix to the house was by way of chance only and
it appears, it was an unexpected visit from the view point of the
prosecutrix. As stated earlier, the prosecutrix also does not explain as to
why did she not close the door in that night though usually she would
keep it closed. So, the strange conduct of the prosecutrix shown by
keeping the door open especially when her husband was out of the house
and not raising the shouts for help coupled with material inconsistencies
and coming of unusual sound from the room of the prosecutrix during
presence of appellant in her room, all create a large circle of doubt over
the version of prosecutrix giving rise to a strong possibility of presence of
consent of the prosecutrix in the whole incident. There is no other
evidence, which has ruled out consent of the prosecutrix.
13. In view of the above, I find that the prosecution has failed to
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
11
establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a forcible act on the
part of the appellant behind his sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
While the fact of sexual intercourse of the appellant with the prosecutrix
has been established, about which there is not much establish, it was
without consent of the victim, ged about 40 years, has not been. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is seen, has not considered the
material aspects manifestly coming out from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses which are discussed at length earlier and the result
is of a perverse finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge. Inevitably, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the main offence of rape by the appellant upon the prosecutrix.
14. Once it is proved that the possibility of consent in the present
case has not been ruled out, offences of house trespass (Section 506 IPC)
and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) would also stand as not
proved.
15. As regards the offence of causing of simple hurt punishable
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, I must say, the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution does not show that the simple hurt
that was caused to the lips of the prosecutrix was voluntarily caused by
the appellant. The offence of simple hurt punishable under Section 323
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
12
of the Indian Penal Code is constituted only when the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the simple hurt is caused by the accused
with an intention or with the knowledge to cause it and then only it could
be termed as voluntarily causing of the hurt. Since I have found that
possibility of consensual sex was very much there, the theory of
intentional or wilful causing of hurt to the prosecutrix cannot be believed.
The medical evidence of Dr Trupti Katre does show some abrasions and
contusions on upper lips and chest and also lacerated wound on the
lower lip. But, these injuries, as stated earlier, could not be said to have
been caused voluntarily in view of the evidence of three main
prosecution witnesses discussed earlier. So, I find that even the offence
punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code has not been
proved by the prosecution.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the impugned judgment
and order, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside and the appeal
deserves to be allowed. All points are answered accordingly.
17. Thew appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order
are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 448, 323 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code. The appellant is in jail and, therefore, he is directed to be set
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::
13
at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Muddemal
property, being worthless, be destroyed after a period of six months.
18. Since the appeal has been allowed, application being
Criminal Application No. 1099 of 2017 for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail does not survive for consideration. Disposed of as such.
S. B. SHUKRE, J
joshi
::: Uploaded on – 16/02/2018 17/02/2018 00:19:08 :::