1 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82/2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.387/2016
Raju Sukhdeo Dabhade,
Aged about : 37 years,
R/o Kundegaon Kodri,
Tq. Sangrampur,
Distt. Buldhana.
(At present in Jail,
Central Prison at Amravati). ….. APPELLANT
…V E R S U S…
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Police Station
(Shivaji Nagar), Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, District:Buldhana.
2. Ganesh @ Vastad Gulab Wankhede,
R/o Kundegaon Kodri,
Tq. Sangrampur, District : Buldhana. ….. RESPONDENTS
————————————————————————————————-
Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, Advocate (Appointed) for the appellant.
Shri A.M.Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
————————————————————————————————–
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.387/2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.82/2016
Shri Ganesh @ Vastad Gulab Wankhade,
Aged about : 46 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Kundegaon Kodri, Tq. Sangrampur,
District : Buldhana. (In Jail). ….. APPELLANT
…V E R S U S…
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Shivaji Nagar Khamgaon,
District : Buldhana. ….. RESPONDENT
————————————————————————————————–
Shri Vishal P. Mohod, Advocate (Appointed) for appellant.
Shri A.M.Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
————————————————————————————————–
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
2 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
CORAM:- R. K. DESHPANDE
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
Date of reserving the Judgment : 28.06.2018
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 11.07.2018
JUDGMENT : (PER ARUN D. UPADHYE, J.)
1) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated
08/01/2016 passed by the Special Judge, Khamgaon in Sessions
Trial No.76/2013, the appellants have preferred these two
appeals.
By the impugned Judgment, the learned Special
Judge, Khamgaon has convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) each, in default, they shall
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
They are further convicted and sentenced for the
offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.
These accused also convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer rigorous
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
3 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five
Thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
one year.
The brief facts of the case are as under :-
2) The prosecutrix Ku. Poonam Tayade is minor aged
about 13 and ½ years at the time of incident. She was residing
with her parents, brothers and sister at Rawan Tekdi, Khamgaon.
Her grand-mother Sulochana Kisan Tayde is residing at some
distance from her house. Her uncle Santosh Tayde is residing at
Kundegaon Kodri, Tq. Sangrampur along with his wife and
children and he used to come to her house. According to the
prosecution, her uncle is working in the Band Company and his
friend Raju Dabhade and another person called as Vastad used to
come to her house. Her uncle was residing in the house of her
grand-mother since last 15 days.
3) According to the prosecution, last year, at the time
of Dipawali Holidays, her uncle came to her house at 10.00 a.m. to
11.00 a.m. along with his friends Raju Dabhade and Vastad. The
prosecutrix was alone in the house as her parents were went for
their work. Her uncle was in drunken condition and therefore,
slept in her house. At that time, Raju Dabhade and another person
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
4 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
forcibly by pressing mouth taken her to the house of her grand-
mother. Her grand-mother was sat in front of house. The another
person namely; Vastad put her on the clothes and at that time,
Raju Dabhade was went out of house. The said person Vastad
removed her clothes and committed forcible intercourse with her.
Thereafter, Raju entered in he house and committed forcible
intercourse with her and left the house. Again, Vastad came in the
house and committed forcible intercourse and went out of the
house. Thereafter, again, Raju Dabhade came in the house and
committed forcible intercourse with her. They have given threat
not to disclose the said incident to anybody otherwise they will kill
her. Therefore, she has not disclosed the incident. Due to the said
act, blood was oozing from her private part and stomach ache to
her.
4) The prosecution further came with case that after
2 – 3 days, these persons again came to her house at about
12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. when her parents were went out of the
house for their work. She was alone in the house. They have taken
her to the house of her grand-mother and they have committed
forcible intercourse with her twice one after another. They have
given threat not to disclose the incident to anybody. It is also case
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
5 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
of the prosecution that after 2 – 3 days, they again came to the
house of prosecutrix at 12.30 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. and taken to the
house of her grand-mother and committed forcible intercourse
twice one after another. After 2 – 3 days, the person Vastad came
to her house and taken to the house of her grand-mother and
committed forcible intercourse. He has given threat not to disclose
the incident. The prosecutrix has not disclosed the incident to
anybody. However, there was omitting to her. Therefore, she was
taken to the hospital at Gopalnagar. The M.C. period was also
stopped. There was stomach-ache to her. Thereafter, she realized
that she is pregnant. Her grand-mother, thereafter disclosed the
said fact of pregnancy to her parents. The prosecutrix then
disclosed the incident to her parents about the forcible intercourse
committed by Raju Dabhade and another person Vastad.
5) The prosecutrix along with parents, went to the
Police Station, Shivaji Nagar, Khamgaon and lodged the report
vide Exh.31. The police registered the offence vide Crime
No.45/2013 under Sections 376 (g), 323 and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The printed F.I.R. is at Exh.32. The
victim was referred to the General Hospital, Khamgaon for medical
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
6 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
examination.
6) During the course of investigation, police prepared
Spot Panchanama at Exh.35 and seized one gray colour bed-sheet
from the spot. The victim was carrying 9 month pregnancy and
therefore, referred to the Government Medical College, Akola on
13/08/2013. The victim delivered a female child in the hospital.
The police collected the medical papers from the hospital.
7) During the course of investigation, the police
arrested the accused persons and referred for medical
examination. The blood sample of the accused were seized under
panchanama. The police has also taken blood sample of born baby
and victim girl and seized under panchanama and sent for DNA
Test. During the course of investigation, police collected the CA
reports, DNA reports and other necessary documents. After
completion of the necessary investigation, filed charge sheet
against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 (g), 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012.
8) Both the accused appeared before the Special
Judge, Khamgaon and charge came to be framed against them for
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
7 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. Their defence is that the victim’s uncle Santosh Tayde had
taken advance money from Band Party to play music but he did
not attend the work nor returned their money and to avoid the
liability of repayment of money, the victim girl lodged false report
at the instance of her uncle.
9) After recording the evidence in the matter and after
hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge, Khamgaon, by
impugned judgment dated 08/01/2016 convicted both the
accused for the aforesaid offences accordingly.
10) We have heard Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar and Shri Vishal
Mohod, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Deshpande,
learned A.P.P. for the State.
11) Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove
the age of the victim by adducing cogent evidence. The evidence
produced by the prosecution of Headmaster and school record is
not primary evidence to prove the age of Poonam, who is
prosecutrix. She further submitted that though prosecution has
examined doctor in this case, but no ossification test was taken.
The prosecution thus, failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
8 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
minor at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the
provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 are not made applicable in this case. There is delay in
lodging the report in the Police Station and no explanation is
given. The alleged incident is shown to be taken place in last year
at the time of Dipawali Holidays and report is lodged on
12/08/2013. The alleged incident is shown in between
13/11/2012 to 12/08/2013. The prosecution thus, failed to prove
the offences under Section 376(1) r/w Sections 323 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code. The accused, therefore, be acquitted.
12) Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the prosecutrix
was a minor aged about 13 and ½ year at the time of incident. The
prosecution has examined PW-11 – Ramdas Baliram Shingane,
Incharge Headmaster of Maharashtra Vidhyalaya, Khamgaon, who
proved the extract register vide Exh.58 and bonafide certificate
vide Exh.59. The prosecution thus, proved the fact that the
prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. He further
submitted that the prosecutrix was pregnant and delivered a
female child. The DNA Test matches the accused No.1 – Raju
Dabhade was a biological father of the said female child. The
prosecution, thus established the guilt of the accused as they
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
9 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
committed sexual intercourse with her by giving threat. The
learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted both the accused and
therefore, no interference of this Court is called for. The appeal,
therefore, be dismissed.
13) Considering the submissions of respective sides
with the help of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused
the evidence on record. PW-1 Poonam is prosecutrix who lodged
the report vide Exh.31 on 12/08/2013 and First Information
Report is at Exh.32. In the evidence of prosecutrix, she has
deposed that the incident took place at the time of earlier Dipawali
of year 2013 and at that time, she was taking education in 6th
Standard in Maharashtra Vidyalaya, Khamgaon. She deposed that
both the accused were working with her uncle and came to her
house and committed forcible intercourse with her repeatedly.
Both the accused have given threat to her that if she discloses the
incident, they will kill her. Therefore, she has not disclosed the
incident. In the evidence, she stated that when she was not feeling
well and started omitting, her parents taken her to one doctor at
Gopal Nagar and at that time, she realized that she is pregnant.
Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her parents and lodged the
report in the Police Station. She was cross-examined at length. In
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
10 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
the cross-examination, it is brought on record that there are
residential houses near her house and she had good relations with
neighbour. She was unable to tell the exact date of incident. In her
cross-examination, she admitted that she did not raise shout or
disclose this incident. It was suggested to her that no such incident
took place, but they denied. In the cross-examination, she stated
that her uncle had borrowed money from accused persons and
therefore, the accused had come to her house to take her uncle. It
was suggested to her that on the say of her uncle, she lodged false
report, but they denied. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is
appreciated in proper perspective, it appears that she has not
raised any shout at the time of incident and also not disclosed the
same to anybody. It appears that the First Information Report at
Exh.32 was lodged by her on 12/08/2013. Her evidence discloses
that at the time of filing report, she was pregnant. The police
registered the offence and arrested both the accused. The
prosecutrix Ku.Poonam was referred for medical examination. The
evidence of the doctor is on record. The same will have to be
considered.
14) PW-4 – Dr. Kavita Yashwant Mali has stated in her
deposition that on 13th / 14th August, 2013, the police brought the
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
11 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
patient namely; Pooja Arjun Tayade aged about 17 years and she
examined her. According to the doctor, patient was pregnant and
she accordingly, gave report vide Exh.39. She was cross-examined
at length. She has mentioned the age of patient as 13 years as told
by the police. In the cross-examination, she stated that the patient
delivered a child on 14th August, 2013. From perusal of her
evidence, one thing is clear that when the patient was brought, she
was pregnant when brought her for examination. As the patient
was referred almost after 9 months of the incident, there was no
question of other sign of sexual intercourse.
15) PW-10 – Dr. Nileshkumar Pralhad Kurhade has
deposed that he examined the patient and accordingly issued
Medical Certificate at Exh.54. The patient delivered a child on
13/08/2013. In the cross-examination, he stated that Dr.Kavita
Mali was serving as Casualty Medical Officer and she came to him
for expert opinion. According to the doctor, the possibility of
physical contact of patient is in the month of October, 2012.
Considering the evidence of doctor, the prosecution has
established that the patient was pregnant of 9 months and
delivered a child on 13/08/2013 in the hospital. The Certificate at
Exh.54 is on record issued by this doctor.
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
12 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
16) The prosecution has relied upon the DNA Test. It
appears that the letters vide Exhs.69 and 70 were sent to the
Chemical Analyzer along with blood sample of born baby of
prosecutrix and both the accused for analysis. PW-14 Dr. Snehal
Ashok Deulkar has taken blood sample of these persons. The C.A.
report is received in this matter are at Exhs.14 and 15. As per
these C.A. reports, Raju Dabhade and Poonam Tayde are
concluded to be the biological parent of baby of Poonam Tayde.
However, the accused Vastad Gulab Wankhade is excluded to be
biological father of baby of Poonam. Thus, it is clear that the
accused No.1 is biological father of born baby to the prosecutrix.
The prosecution, thus, established that there was sexual
intercourse committed by accused with prosecutrix.
17) The prosecution came with case that the
prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident. It is, therefore,
necessary for the prosecution to establish the exact age of
prosecutrix. PW-1 Poonam Tayde in her evidence has not stated
that she was minor at the time of incident. However, in the cross-
examination, the defence has asked question about her age and
she stated that at the time of incident, she was about 13 years and
was studying in 6th Standard.
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
13 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
18) The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
submitted that when defence has brought on record her age and
therefore, the prosecution has proved that she was 13 years old at
the time of incident. The learned counsel for the accused, however
strongly objected for the same and submitted that the prosecution
has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix at the time of
incident. Except the bare word of the prosecutrix there is no other
oral evidence on record to show that she was minor at the time of
incident and was of 13 years old.
19) The PW-7 – Arjun Kisan Tayade is father of the
prosecutrix – Poonam. However, there is no whisper from his
evidence that at the time of incident, Poonam was minor and aged
13 years. The submission put forth on behalf of prosecution that
the prosecution has proved that the prosecutrix was minor and 13
years old at the time of incident proved by oral evidence, cannot
be accepted.
20) So far as medical evidence is concerned, PW-4
Dr.Kavita Mali has stated that Pooja Arjun Tayde aged about 17
years was brought to hospital for examination and she examined
her and gave report vide Exh.39. As per the report at Exh.39, the
age of the prosecutrix was shown as 13 years. In the cross-
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
14 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
examination, she stated that the age of the prosecutrix Poonam 13
years mentioned in the certificate on the say of police. No
Ossification Test was taken by this witness. Her evidence,
therefore, cannot be accepted that the prosecutrix was 13 years
old when examined by her. On the contrary, her evidence discloses
that the age of the prosecutrix was 17 years. Therefore, no reliance
could be placed on her evidence so far as age of the prosecutrix is
concerned.
21) PW-10 – Dr.Nileshkumar Pralhad Kurhade has
deposed in his evidence that the patient Poonam was examined
by him. According to him, as per the narration by the patient and
her relatives, the patient was aged 13 years old. The Medical
Certificate issued by him is at Exh.54. He has only given the age
13 years in the certificate. However, no scientific test was taken by
him, no ossification test was carried out. The evidence of this
witness thus, not cogent on the point of age of the patient.
Therefore, no much importance to be given to his evidence.
22) The prosecution has relied upon school record of
the prosecutrix to prove her age. The prosecution has examined
PW-11 Ramdash Baliram Shingane, Incharge Headmaster of
Maharashtra Vidyalaya, Khamgaon. As per his version, Poonam
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
15 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
was studying for the year 2013-2014 in 6th Standard and as per
the school record, date of birth of Poonam is 20/01/2000. He has
proved the Extract Register as well as Bonafide Certificate vide
Exhs.58 and 59 respectively. He was cross-examined at length by
the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that he
has brought the original School Leaving Certificate of Poonam. He
stated that he is saying the date of birth of Poonam on the basis of
School Leaving Certificate submitted by her in his school. He also
stated that he is unable to say whether birth of Poonam mentioned
in the School Leaving Certificate of Primary School is true or false.
From perusal of evidence of this witness and after going through
the Extract Register at Exh.58, it appears that Poonam was
admitted in the school of Maharashtra Vidyalaya, Khamgaon on
02/05/2012 and School Leaving Certificate was given to her on
01/10/2014. As per the extract, her date of birth is showing as
20/01/2000, the Bonafide Certificate is at Exh.59 issued on
08/10/2013. As per the said certificate, the date of birth of
Poonam is shown as 20/01/2000. The prosecution did not file the
School Leaving Certificate of previous school, though was with
Headmaster. The prosecution has not produced the documents of
school where Poonam was studying upto 5th Standard. As per the
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
16 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
extract at Ext.58, Poonam was studying previously in Nagar
Parishad Prathmik Shala, Khamgaon. No explanation was given by
the prosecution why school record of previous school was not
produced. The prosecution has not examined who has given
information at the time of admission of the prosecutrix in 1st
Standard to ascertain her exact date of birth. The school record
produced by the prosecution is of 02/05/2012 where she has
taken admission in 6th Standard. Therefore, school record
produced by the prosecution is not primary evidence of the fact of
her age and this cannot be relied upon.
23) PW-11 – Ramdas Shingane, Incharge Headmaster
has also stated that he is unable to say whether the date of birth of
Poonam mentioned in School Leaving Certificate of Primary
School is true or false. Thus, the documentary evidence relied
upon by the prosecution is not cogent and also cannot be accepted
for establishing the exact age of the prosecutrix Poonam. The
submission put forth on behalf of prosecution that the prosecution
has proved the age of Poonam by adducing documentary evidence,
therefore, cannot be accepted.
24) Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon ruling in the case of Sunil Vrs. State of
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
17 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
Haryana, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 742. In the above ruling, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in allegation of rape of minor
prosecution not conducting examination by Dental Surgeon or
Radiologist on prosecutrix. In spite of being referred to for such
examination by doctor, School Leaving Certificate produced
showing attendance of only 100 days. Prosecutrix being admitted
and leaving school in mid session, said certificate being obtained
after commission of offence and prosecution failed to produce any
admission form of the school. The said School Leaving Certificate
on facts held not reliable. Considering the ratio laid down in the
above ruling and facts of the present case, we are of the
considered view that the above ruling is squarely made applicable
in the case at hand. In this case, the prosecutrix was referred for
medical examination. However, no Ossification Test was
conducted. The school record produced was of another school
where she was admitted on 02/05/2012 prior to 6 months of the
incident. No primary evidence is adduced by the prosecution. No
informant who has given information to the school in primary
school is examined. School record produced by the prosecution
thus, not reliable and cannot be accepted.
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
18 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
25) The learned counsel for the appellant also relied
upon the ruling in the case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vrs. Anand
Purohit, reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 604. In the above ruling,
the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 17 clearly observed that the
documentary evidence vide Exhs.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Those
relative entries regarding date of birth contained in the scholar’s
register and secondary school examination have no probative
value, as no person on whose information the dates of birth of
aforesaid candidates was mentioned in the school record was
examined. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, we are of the considered view that the above ruling is made
applicable in the present case. The prosecution has not examined
the informant who has given information of the date of birth of
the prosecutrix and no probative value is attached to the school
record produced by the prosecution.
26) Shri Deshpande, learned A.P.P. has relied upon the
ruling in the case of Mahadeo s/o Kerba Maske Vrs. State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 637,
certificate of age from school or local authorities can be proved
and in the absence of such document, medical opinion can be
sought for. The reliance placed upon the certificate to arrive at age
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
19 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
of prosecutrix to be below 18 years was perfectly justified. One
cannot dispute that in the absence of alternative methods
described under Rule 12(3)(a) (i) (ii) (iii) of Rules of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the medical
opinion can be sought. The evidence relied by the prosecution a
school certificate vide Exhs.58 and 59 cannot be accepted, as the
same are not primary evidence of the age of the prosecutrix. No
informant was examined who informed the age of the prosecutrix
at the time of admission in 1st Standard and therefore, this ruling
will not be helpful to the prosecution that the prosecution has
established the age of the prosecutrix by adducing documentary
evidence of school record and no necessity of Ossification Test.
27) Shri Deshpande, learned A.P.P. also relied upon the
Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.442/2010
(State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Anoop Singh). We have perused the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Their Lordships have held
that as per Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Rules, 2007, the age of the victim of rape could be
determined.
i) The matriculation or equivalent certificates, if
available; and in the absence whereof;
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
20 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
ii) The date of birth certificate from the school (other
than a play school) first attended; and in the absence
whereof;
iii) The birth certificate given by a corporation or a
municipal authority or a panchayat.
The date of birth certificate from school (other than
play school) first attended and in the absence thereof, the birth
certificate given by corporation or municipal authority or
Panchayat and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of
Clause (a), the medical opinion can be sought from the duly
constituted Medical Board. So far as clauses (i) and (iii) are not
made applicable as there is no matriculation or equivalent
certificate or certificate from Corporation or Municipal Council or
Panchayat produced in this case. So far as clause (ii) is concerned,
the birth certificate from the school issued in this case is
concerned, the same is not proved by the prosecution by adducing
cogent evidence and therefore, this ruling is not helpful to the
prosecution.
28) Considering the evidence produced by the
prosecution in this case and after hearing learned counsel for the
defence and learned A.P.P., we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the prosecutrix was
minor at the time of incident. The defence is able to create
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
21 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
reasonable doubt about the age of the prosecutrix Poonam. The
benefit of doubt goes to the accused. The Special Judge has not
considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and
wrongly held that prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident.
The fact that the accused No.1 and prosecutrix are biological
father of baby of prosecutrix Poonam itself is not sufficient to
convict the accused for the offence charged.
29) The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
submitted that the accused at least be convicted under Section 376
of the Indian Penal Code as the rape was committed by the
accused by giving threat. The said submission also without
substance. The prosecutrix did not disclose the incident till filing
report in the police station on 12/08/2013. The alleged incident
took place at the time of Dipawali earlier of year 2013. The
learned A.P.P. has submitted that the alleged incident must have
been in the month of November, 2012 as Dipawali was in the said
month. No disclosure by the prosecutrix about the incident to
anybody or at least her parents for long time of 9 months. She
realized that she became pregnant and waited upto her delivery.
As per the record, she delivered a female child on 13/08/2013
after one day of lodging the report. The submission put forth on
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
22 APPEAL-J-82-16.odt
behalf of learned A.P.P. that there is no suggestion to the
prosecutrix that she was consenting party and therefore, the
offence under Section 376 is made out, also cannot be accepted. It
is to be noted that initial burden on the prosecution to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and same
never shifts on the accused. The fact that the accused have not
taken any defence does not mean that they are not entitled for
benefit of doubt. The prosecution, thus miserably failed to prove
that the accused forcibly committed intercourse with her and she
was miner at the time of incident. The offence charged against the
accused persons are not established.
30) The learned Special Judge, Khamgaon has wrongly
convicted the accused for the offence charged. Both the accused
are entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under Sections
376, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence
punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appeals filed by the accused
persons deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following
order.
::: Uploaded on – 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
23 APPEAL-J-82-16.odtORDER
I) Criminal Appeal Nos.82/2016 and 387/2016 are allowed.
The impugned Judgment and order dated 08/01/2016 passed by
the Special Judge, Khamgaon in S.T.No.76/2013 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
II) Both the accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code and of the offence punishable under
Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012.
III) Both the accused are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
IV) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to them.
V) Muddemal property being worthless, be destroyed after the
appeal period is over.
VI) The fees of Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar and Shri Vishal P. Mohod,
Advocates (Appointed) are quantified at Rs.5,000/- each.
VII) Record and Proceedings be sent to the concerned Court.
(Arun D. Upadhye, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)
Choulwar::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2018 14/07/2018 01:30:22 :::
