SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raju Sukhdeo Dabhade (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through … on 11 July, 2018

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.odt

ORDER

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh