1apeal172.19.J.odt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR

CRIMINALAPPEALNO.172OF2019

RajualiasRajyas/oVasantraoJadhao(InJail),
Agedabout40years,Occ:Labour,
R/oIsapur,Tah.Katol,Dist.Nagpur
(PresentlyCentralPrisonatNagpur)…….APPELLANT

…VERSUS…

TheStateofMaharashtra,
throughP.O.S.PoliceStationKatol,
Dist.Nagpur……..RESPONDENT
——————————————————————————————-
ShriL.B.Khergade,AdvocateforAppellant.
ShriN.B.Jawade,APPforRespondent/State.
——————————————————————————————-

CORAM:ROHITB.DEO,J.
DATE:11thJUNE,2019.

ORALJUDGMENT:

HeardShriL.B.Khergade,thelearnedCounselforthe

appellantandShriN.B.Jawade,thelearnedAdditionalPublic

Prosecutorfortherespondent/State.

2]Theappellantisassailingthejudgmentdated

29.07.2017renderedbytheAdditionalSessionsJudge(IV),

NagpurinSessionsCase169of2016byandunderwhichthe

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
2apeal172.19.J.odt

appellantisconvictedforoffencepunishableunderSection376(2)

(l)SectionoftheIndianPenalCodeandissentencedtosufferrigorous

imprisonmentfortenyearsandtopaymentoffineofRs.1000/-

andisfurtherconvictedforoffencepunishableunderSection451

oftheIndianPenalCodeandissentencedtosufferrigorous

imprisonmentforoneyearandtopaymentoffineofRs.500/-.

3]Thevictim,whowasaged22yearsismentally

challenged.

4]Thevictimwasresidingwithhermotherandyounger

brotheratvillageIsapur.

5]Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthaton04.10.2015

whenthebrotherofthevictimPiyushreturnedfromschoolhe

noticedthatboththedoorsofthehousewerelockedfrominside.

Piyushclimbedonthewatertankandthenonthewallofthe

houseandpippedinside.Piyushsawtheappellant-whoshallbe

referredtoastheaccusedhereinafter-lyingoverhersister.Both

werenaked.Piyushwentouttoplayandwhenhismother

returnednarratedtheincidenttoher.Themother-Geeta

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
3apeal172.19.J.odt

approachedthePolicePatilwhoadvisedhertolodgepolicereport.

GeetawenttothePoliceStationinthenightandwasaskedto

comethenextdaymorning.Geetalodgedthereportagainstthe

accusedonthemorningof05.10.2015onthebasisofwhich

reportpoliceregisteredcrime241of2015.TheI.O.visitedthe

spotofincidentandpreparedspotpanchnama.Thevictimwas

medicallyexaminedandthemedicalreportobtained.Theaccused

wasarrestedandhisclotheswereseized.Statementsofwitnesses

wererecorded.Thecompletionoftheinvestigationculminatedin

submissionofcharge-sheetintheMagistrateCourtandthe

proceedingswerecommittedtotheSessionsCourt.

6]TheSessionsJudgeframedchargeforoffence

punishableunderSectionsection376andSection451oftheIndianPenalCode.

Theaccusedabjuredguiltandclaimedtobetriedinaccordance

withlaw.

7]Theprosecutionexaminedeightwitnesses.

Theaccuseddidnotstepintothewitnessboxnordidheexamine

anywitnessindefence.Thetrendandtenorofthe

cross-examinationandthestatementrecordedunderSectionsection313

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
4apeal172.19.J.odtSection

oftheCriminalProcedureCodeshowsthatthedefenceisoftotal

denialandfalseimplication.Themotiveforfalseimplicationis,

accordingtothedefence,adisputebetweentheaccusedandthe

motherofthevictimovertheissueofcertainpaymentduetothe

accusedwhodidsomecivilconstructionworkatthehouseofthe

motherofthevictim.

8]IhaveheardShriL.B.Khergade,thelearnedcounsel

fortheaccusedandShriN.B.Jawade,thelearnedAdditional

PublicProsecutorandwiththeirableassistance,Ihavescrutinized

thematerialonrecordandthereasonsrecordedbythetrialCourt.

ThetrialCourthasreliedsubstantially,ifnotentirelyonthe

evidenceofPiyushandcorroborationissoughtfromthemedical

evidence.ShriL.B.Khergade,thelearnedcounselfortheaccused

wouldsubmitthattheevidenceofPiyushisnottrustworthyand

therelianceonthemedicalevidenceismisplacedandthemedical

evidenceismisreadbythelearnedSessionsJudge.Thealternate

submissionisthattheaccused,ifatall,canbeconvictedonlyfor

offencepunishableunderSectionsection354oftheIndianPenalCode.

ShriL.B.Khergade,thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedwould

submitthatthereisnoscientificevidencetolinktheaccusedwith

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
5apeal172.19.J.odt

thecrimeorforthatmattertoholdthatthevictimwassubjected

tosexualintercourse.ShriN.B.Jawade,thelearnedAdditional

PublicProsecutorfairlydoesnotdenythatthereisnomedicalor

scientificevidencetosuggestthattherewassexualintercourse.

ShriN.B.Jawadewouldhowever,submitthattheevidenceof

Piyush,whichisacceptedbytheSessionsJudge,issufficientto

bringhomethecharge.

9]ThelearnedSessionsJudgehasoninteractingwith

thevictimnotedthatsheisnotacompetentwitness.Thatthe

victimismentallychallengedisestablishedbeyondanydoubtby

thecogentevidenceonrecord.Geetathemotherofthechild

victim(PW2)andherbrotherPiyush(PW3)havedeposedthat

thevictimismentallychallengedandisnotinapositionto

understandanything.Thisevidenceisnotseriouslychallenged.

PW1-PolicePatilhasalsodeposedonsimilarlines.PW8

Dr.AmitNagarkarhasdeposedthatthevictimwasadmittedinthe

RegionalMentalHospital,Nagpuron17.10.2013andwas

examinedbyhimon18/19.10.2013.Shewasdiagnosedwith

psychosisNOS.Thevictimwasdischargedon07.10.2014aftershe

showedpartialimprovement.PW7Dr.PravinNavkharehas

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
6apeal172.19.J.odt

provedthecertificateExh.51whichsheissuedonthebasisof

record.SimilaristhedepositionofPW7Dr.PravinNavkharewho

wasthenworkingasMedicalOfficerattheRegionalMental

Hospital,Nagpurandwhoexaminedthevictimtwice.PW7

Dr.PravinNavkharedeposedthatthevictimwasnotcuredand

wastreatedasoutdoorpatientonherdischarge.PW7Dr.Pravin

Navkharecategoricallystatedthattheillnessfromwhichthe

victimissufferingisnotcurable.PW7andPW8haveproved

medicalcasepapersExh.73.Consideringtheevidenceonrecord,

IhavenohesitationinconcurringwiththelearnedSessionsJudge

thatthementalillnessofthevictimandtherefore,herinabilityto

giveconsenttoaphysicalrelationship,isestablishedbeyond

reasonabledoubt.

10]ThelearnedSessionsJudgeheldthatsincemedical

certificateExh.27statesthatthehymenofthevictimisruptured,

theprosecutioncasethatthevictimwassubjectedtosexual

intercourseiscorroborated.However,ifthemedicalcertificate

Exh.27isperused,itisseenthatalthoughthehymenisstatedto

berupturedtheedgeswerehealedandbleedingwasabsent.

Themedicalevidenceisnotindicativeofrecentsexualintercourse.

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::

7apeal172.19.J.odt

Therefore,thelearnedSessionsJudgeclearlyerredintreatingthe

medicalcertificateascorroborativeevidence.

11]Irrefutably,thereisnoevidence,otherthanthe

evidenceofPW3Piyush,whichwouldassisttheCourtinarriving

atanyconclusionwithanydegreeofcertaintyastowhetherthe

victimwassubjectedtosexualintercourse.Thescientificevidence

isabsentandthemedicalevidenceisinconclusive.Itwould

therefore,benecessarytoconsidertheevidenceofPW3Piyushto

assesswhethertheprosecutionhasestablishedbeyondreasonable

doubtthatthevictim,whounfortunatelywasinnopositionto

enterthewitnessboxduetohermentaldisability,wassubjected

tosexualintercourse.

12]IhaveconsideredtheevidenceofPW3Piyushwho

was9yearsoldatthetimeoftheincident.TheevidenceofPW3

PiyushisacceptedbythetrialCourt,andIdonotseeanyreason

totakeadifferentview.Theevidenceisnaturalandappearstobe

truthfulandtrustworthy.However,eveniftheevidenceofPW3

Piyushisaccepted,allthatcanbesaidisthathesawtheaccused

andthevictiminnakedcondition.Thequestionwhichneedstobe

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
8apeal172.19.J.odt

answerediswhethertheevidenceissufficienttoholdtheaccused

guiltyofrape.Itisinthiscontext,thatthealternatesubmissionof

thelearnedcounselShriL.B.Khergadethattheaccusedcanatthe

mostbeconvictedfortheoffenceunderSectionsection354oftheIndian

PenalCodeneedsconsideration.ShriN.B.Jawade,thelearned

AdditionalPublicProsecutorwouldrespondtothealternate

submissionbycontendingthatevenifsexualintercourseisheld

notproved,theoffenceofattempttorapeisclearlyestablished.

ShriN.B.Jawade,thelearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorwould

relyonthedecisionoftheHon’bleApexCourtinSectionMadanLalv.

StateofJammuandKashmirreportedinAIR1998SC386.

13]Thedistinctionbetweenintention,preparationandan

attemptiswellrecognizedalbeitthedividinglinebetween

preparationandanattemptisattimesblurred.Thedistinction

betweenattempttorapeandcriminalassaultisconsideredbythe

Hon’bleApexCourtinthecaseofSectionTarkeshwarSahuv.Stateof

Bihar(NowJharkhand)reportedin(2006)8SCC56thus:

“14.Thedistinctionbetweenrapeandcriminal
assaulthasbeenaptlydescribedintheEnglishcase
Rexv.JamesLloyd(1836)7CP317:173ER

141.Inthiscase,whilesummingupthechargeto

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
9apeal172.19.J.odt

thejury,JusticePattersonobserved:

Inordertofindtheprisonerguiltyofan
assaultwithintenttocommitarape,youmustbe
satisfiedthattheprisoner,whenhelaidholdofthe
prosecutrix,notonlydesiredtogratifyhispassions
uponherpersonbutthatheintendedtodosoatall
events,andnotwithstandinganyresistanceonher
part.

15.AsimilarcasewasdecidedbyMirzaand
BroomfieldJJ.oftheBombayHighCourtinAhmed
AsaltMirkhanCriminalAppealNo.161of1930,
decidedon12-8-1930reportedinLawofCrimesby
RatanlalDhirajlal’spage922.Inthatcasethe
complainant,amilkmaid,aged12or13years,who
washawkingmilk,enteredtheaccusedhouseto
delivermilk.Theaccusedgotupfromthebedon
whichhewaslyingandchainedthedoorfrom
inside.Hethenremovedhisclothesandthegirl’s
petticoat,pickedherup,laidheronthebed,andsat
onherchest.Heputhishandoverhermouthto
preventhercryingandplacedhisprivatepart
againsthers.Therewasnopenetration.Thegirl
struggledandcriedandsotheaccuseddesistedand
shegotup,unchainedthedoorandwentout.Itwas
heldthattheaccusedwasnotguiltyofattemptto
commitrapebutofindecentassault.Thepointof
distinctionbetweenanoffencetocommitrapeand
tocommitindecentassaultisthatthereshouldbe
someactiononthepartoftheaccusedwhichwould
showthatheisjustgoingtohavesexualconnection
withher.”

14]Itwouldalsobeappositetonoticethefollowing

observationsoftheHon’bleApexCourtinSectionStateofRajasthanvs.Sri

Chandreportedin(2015)11SCC229:

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::

10apeal172.19.J.odt

“8.WefindthatFIRwasrecordedunderSection
376readwithSection511ofIndianPenalCodei.e.
attempttorapeandnotrapeperse.Thereisnoeye
witnessonrecordapartfromtheprosecutrixherself
asPW3Biharilalonlysawtheaccusedfleeingaway
andSaroj,theallegedeyewitness,wasnever
producedbeforetheCourtnorherstatementwas
recordedunderSection161ofCodeofCriminal
Procedure.Also,nomedicalexaminationofthe
prosecutrixhasbeenconducted.Theprosecutrixhas
inherstatementstatedthattheaccusedSriChand
tookherinsideherhouse,closedit,undressedher
andundressedhimself.Thereafter,shestates,hegot
ontoheranddidbadwork.Onbeingrepeatedly
askedwhatbadworkwasdone,shekeptquietand
bowedherhead,inembarrassmentunderstandably.
Onemustnotlosesightofthefactthatthe
prosecutrixwasaminorchildatthetimeofthe
incident.Thefather(PW6)oftheprosecutrixhas
categoricallystatedthatbadworkmeantrape.
However,wefinddifficultyinveracityofhis
statementsincehewasnotaneyewitnessandwas
noteventoldabouttheincidentbytheprosecutrix.
HewastolddetailsoftheincidentbyBiharilal
(PW3)whoisnotaneyewitnesstotheincident.
However,Biharilalwasthefirstpersontohave
learntoftheoffencefromtheprosecutrixandhehas
completelycorroboratedherversion.Bythis
consistentevidencewhatisprovedbeyond
reasonabledoubtistheoffenceunderSection354of
IndianPenalCode.However,thequestionofattempt
torapeisnotprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Onthequestionofattempttorape,learnedCounsel
appearingfortheRespondenthassoughttorelyon
twoprecedentsbeingAmanKumarandAnr.v.State
ofHaryanaMANU/SC/0104/2004:(2004)4SCC
379,andTarkeshwarSahuvs.StateofBihar(now
Jharkhand)MANU/SC/4421/2006:(2006)8SCC

560.Inboththecitedjudgmentsitisheldthatfor
theacttoconstituteoffenceofrapepenetrationis

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
11apeal172.19.J.odt

pre-requisite(thisisthepre2013Criminal
Amendmentpositionoflaw)andthereforeforthe
offenceofattempttorapetheaccusedmusthaveso
advancedinhisactionsthatitwouldhaveresulted
intorapehadsomeextraneousfactorsnot
intervened.ItisheldinAmanKumar’scasethatin
ordertocometotheconclusionthatattempttorape
iscommitteditshouldbeshownthattheaccused
wasdeterminedtohavesexualconnection
(penetration)withtheprosecutrixatallevents
inspiteofallresistance.Inthepresentcasethe
accusedfledawayonwhenthePW3cametothe
placeofincidentduetoshoutingoftheprosecutrix.
Thisshowshewasn’tdeterminedtohavesexual
connectionwiththeprosecutrixdespiteallresistance
andodds.Alsoitwouldberelevanttonotethat
thereareinconsistenciesinthestatementofthe
prosecutrixwhereinshestatesthatshehadsuffered
injuriesonherbreastbutsameisnotcorroborated
bythemedicalevidence.Also,Saroj,whoisan
importanteyewitness,isnotproducedasawitness.
Inthisviewofthematter,wefinditdifficulttohold
thatoffenceofattempttorapeisprovedtoa
sufficientmeasure.”

15]Fromtheevidenceonrecorditisdifficulttocometo

anyconclusion,withanydegreeofcertainty,thattheaccused

intendedtogratifyhispassionsunderanycircumstanceandthat

hewaspreventedbysomeexternalfactororthestiffresistanceof

thevictimfromcompletingthecarnalact.SectionInMadanLalv.Stateof

JammuandKashmirtheHon’bleSupremeCourtarticulatesthus:

12.Thedifferencebetweenpreparationandan
attempttocommitanoffenceconsistschieflyinthe

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
12apeal172.19.J.odt

greaterdegreeofdeterminationandwhatis
necessarytoproveforanoffenceofanattemptto
commitrapehasbeencommittedisthattheaccused
hasgonebeyondthestageofpreparation.Ifan
accusedstripsagirlnakedandthenmakingherflat
onthegroundundresseshimselfandthenforcibly
rubshiserectedpenisontheprivatepartofthegirl
butfailstopenetratethesameintoVaginaandon
suchrubbingejaculateshimselfthenitisdifficultfor
ustoholdthatitwasacaseofmerelyassaultunder
Section354I.P.C.andnotanattempttocommit
rapeunderSection376readwith511SectionI.P.C.Inthe
factsandcircumstancesofthepresentcasethe
offenceofanattempttocommitrapebyaccusedhas
beenclearlyestablishedandtheHighCourtrightly
convictedhimunderSection376readwith511
SectionI.P.C.

TheevidencewhichtheHon’bleSupremeCourttookinto

considerationwastheevidenceoftheprosecutrixherself,

whichwasfoundreliable,thechemicalandmicroscopicaltests

whichrevealedthepresenceofsemen/humanspermatozoaon

theclothesoftheprosecutrixandthetestimonyofthemother

oftheprosecutrixtotheeffectthattheprosecutriximmediately

narratedtheentireepisodetoher.Itisinthelightofthe

evidenceonrecordthattheobservationsreproducedsupraare

madebytheHon’bleSupremeCourt.

16]Iamnotpersuadedtoupholdtheconvictionofthe

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::
13apeal172.19.J.odt

accusedfortheoffencepunishableunderSection376(2)(l)of

theIndianPenalCode.Instead,theaccusedisliabletobe

convictedunderSection354oftheIndianPenalCode.

17]TheconvictionoftheaccusedunderSection

376(2)(l)oftheIndianPenalCodeissetaside.Theaccusedis

convictedforanoffencepunishableunderSection354ofthe

IndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferrigorous

imprisonmentforfouryears.Thesentenceofpaymentoffineis

confirmed.TheconvictionunderSection451oftheIndian

PenalCodeandthesentenceimposedisconfirmed.

18]Theappealispartlyallowedintheaforestated

terms.

JUDGE

NSN

:::Uploadedon-12/06/201913/06/201902:11:35:::