1 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2016
Samji s/o Isarya Gavit,
Age 51 years, R/o. Amlan,
Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar. …. Appellant
(Orig. Accused).
VERSUS.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Nawapur, Tq.
Nawapur, Dist. Nandurbar … Respondent
…
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. C.R. Deshpande.
APP for Respondent : Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi.
CORAM : K. L. WADANE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23rd OCTOBER, 2018.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th OCTOBER, 2018.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant preferred this appeal against his conviction
recorded by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2015 for the
offence punishable under section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine
of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under section
313 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to
1/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
2 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He is also convicted for
the offence punishable under section 5(j) (ii) (l) and (n) read with
section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012
and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay
fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three
months. The sentences imposed shall run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.
Gujrathi, learned APP for the respondent/State.
3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows :
P.W. 1 prosecutrix is the daughter of the appellant/accused.
She resided with appellant/accused and other family members at
village Amlan Tq. Navapur, District Nandurbar, prior to 20.03.2014. It
is alleged by the prosecutrix that when she was taking education in 7th
standard, the appellant/accused committed rape on her from time to
time and due to which she remained pregnant. Then the
appellant/accused forcibly administered rudimentary medicines and
due to which there was abortion. The appellant/accused threatened
the prosecutrix that she should not disclose the said fact to anybody.
Getting rid of the situation and the circumstances lastly prosecutrix left
the house of the accused/appellant on 20.03.2014 and had taken
2/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
3 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
shelter of her maternal aunt P.W. 3 namely Mina Diwanji Gavit. When
the prosecutrix was residing with P.W. 3 Mina she disclosed the incident
in detail to P.W. 3 Mina.
4. On 24.04.2014 appellant/accused lodged missing report of
the prosecutrix and subsequently on 09.05.2015 the appellant/accused
filed a complaint in the police station about the kidnapping of P.W. 1
prosecutrix, on which the P.W. 1 prosecutrix was called in the police
station where P.W. 1 prosecutrix as well as P.W. 3 Mina have stated that
the P.W. 1 prosecutrix was not kidnapped by anybody and therefore the
complaint of kidnapping was withdrawn by the appellant/accused.
5. On 22.07.2014 the appellant/accused filed a Writ Petition
before this Court for the custody of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix
was called in the police station and after verifying that at the relevant
time she was minor and a child, therefore, initially she was referred to
Child Welfare Committee at Nandurbar and after about one month
after attaining the age of 18 years, she was referred to Government
Hospital Dhule. When the prosecutrix was staying at Dhule she made
an application that she wants to reside with her maternal aunt i.e. P.W.
3 Mina and since then the prosecutrix is residing there.
6. In order to establish the charges levelled against the
3/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
4 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
appellant/accused the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses
i.e. (1) P.W. 1 prosecutrix, (2) P.W. 2 Ishwar Dhamane, Chairman of
Child Welfare Committee, P.W. 3 Mina Diwanji Gavit (maternal aunt of
prosecutrix), P.W. 4 Dr. Shila Bokare and P.W. 6 Dr. Nilesh Deoraj, who
were medically examined the prosecutrix on the point of sexual assault
and whether there was abortion as stated by P.W. 1 prosecutrix. P.W. 5
Ramesh Varhade, investigating officer of incident of kidnapping and
P.W. 7 Govind Gadhari, retired P.S.I., investigating officer.
7. Besides the oral evidence of aforesaid witnesses the
prosecution has relied upon the birth certificate of P.W. 1 prosecutrix at
Exh. 36, medical certificates (Exh. 62 and 65). After recording the
evidence, the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded. No defence evidence is adduced
on behalf of the appellant/accused.
8. From the line of cross-examination and from the statement of
the appellant/accused recorded under section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure it appears that the defence of the
appellant/accused is of two folded that is on the instigation of P.W. 3
Mina, P.W. 1 proscutrix lodged the complaint for monetary gain and
secondly one Danial kidnapped the P.W. 1 prosecutrix and to save
Danial, P.W. 3 instigated P.W. 1 prosecutrix to file complaint against the
4/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
5 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
appellant/accused.
9. From the record it appears that at the relevant time of
incident i.e. four to five years prior to 20.03.2014 the prosecutrix was
below 18 years of age, because her date of birth appears to be
18.10.1996. The allegations made by the prosecutrix are against her
own father, therefore this Court has to see whether there was any
reason for the prosecutrix to lodge a false complaint with the
allegations of rape committed by the appellant/accused from time to
time. To examine this material and important aspect the evidence of
P.W. 1 prosecutrix and P.W. 3 Mina is most important.
10. On perusal of oral evidence of P.W. 1 prosecutrix it appears
that at the time of incident P.W. 1 was studying in 7th standard. While
she was studying in 7th standard her father raped her. Her father used
to beat her and used to say that if she disclosed about his act to
anybody he would kill her. It also appears from the further evidence
of P.W. 1 prosecutrix that she disclosed this fact to her mother. When
her mother tried to give understanding to the accused at that time he
threatened her to kill. She further deposed that because of the act of
her father she became pregnant. Her father forcibly gave her
rudimentary medicines to make her to abort and accordingly she got
aborted. Thereafter also again her father committed rape on her.
5/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
6 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
11. On perusal of further evidence it appears that P.W. 1
prosecutrix left the house of appellant/accused and went to the house
of maternal aunt P.W. 3 Mina at village Bedki.
12. It reveals from the record that pursuant to the complaint of
kidnapping presented by the appellant/accused the prosecutrix was
called in the police station and after recording her statement police
satisfied that her custody was to be handed over to P.W. 3 Mina. The
reason for that appearing in the oral evidence of P.W. 1 is that as her
father was torturing her and was committing rape on her therefore
she refused to go along with her father.
13. It further reveals from the record that subsequently
prosecutrix went to the police station to lodge the complaint however
her complaint was not taken, therefore, she approached to the
Superintendent of Police at Nandurbar. Thereafter the complaint of
the prosecutrix was recorded on 09.12.2014.
14. I have carefully gone through the cross-examination of the
prosecutrix from which it appears that nothing has been admitted by
the prosecutrix to disbelieve her version as to the sexual assault by the
father/accused. There are some suggestions to her but those
suggestions are denied and some minor contradictions and omissions
6/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
7 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
are brought on record, however, those are not sufficient to discard the
entire case of the prosecution.
15. It is to be noted that the P.W. 1 prosecutrix is residing in tribal
area, she hardly studied upto 7th standard, therefore looking to the
status and the fact that she was residing in a rural area of Navapur
Taluka, some omissions and contractions are bound to occur in the
statement of the prosecutrix. However, by any stretch of imagination,
I do not find any reason as to why the prosecutrix, being a daughter,
has deposed against the father. Apart from the evidence of the
prosecutrix there is evidence of P.W. 3 Mina in the form of
corroboration and there is evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. Shila and P.W. 6 Dr.
Nilesh as to the sexual assault.
16. On scrutiny of oral evidence of P.W. 3 Mina it reveals that in
the month of March 2014 complainant came to her house at Bedki and
disclosed that her father committed sexual intercourse with her and
because of which she became pregnant. She further told that her
father gave her rudimentary medicines to abort and because of which
she does aborted. Victim disclosed the act of her father to her brother
and mother however they did not help her and on the contrary they
beat her.
7/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
8 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
17. From the aforesaid evidence it appears that P.W. 1 prosecutrix
left the house of her father and when there was an opportunity to
disclose the incident, she disclosed it to her maternal aunt P.W. 3 Mina.
18. From the record it appears that the accused was committing
sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix repeatedly and prosecutrix was
staying in the house of the accused and it is further come in the
evidence that the accused was threatening the prosecutrix to kill, in
such circumstances, it would not be expected from the prosecutrix to
disclose the heinous act committed by her father/accused and there is
explanation from the prosecutrix that she did not disclose the incident
to anybody so as to avoid the defamation and this explanation is
invited by the defence counsel in the cross-examination in para No. 6
which reads as follows :
“It is true to say that in my complaint at Exh. 20 I had
stated that till date I did not lodge the report against my
father about his act as I and he would get defame.”
The apparent reason for non disclosure of the incident is to avoid
defamation in the society and second reason appears to be that the
prosecutrix was in the custody of accused and depending upon him. It
was not possible for her to take shelter of other relatives, therefore,
8/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
9 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
probable she did not disclose anything to anybody.
19. On perusal of further evidence of P.W. 3 Mina, she deposed
about the filing of missing report, thereupon the prosecutrix and P.W. 3
Mina went to the police station. She further deposed that the
prosecutrix was initially sent to Child Welfare Committee and after
attaining the age of 18 years she sent to Government Hospital Dhule.
20. So the evidence of P.W. 3 Mina is in the form of corroboration
to the evidence of P.W. 1 prosecutrix. Number of suggestions were
given to P.W. 3 Mina, however all the suggestions were denied. One of
the suggestion was that P.W. 3 cooked up this false case in order to gain
in terms of money. However, I do not find any reason for the same
because P.W. 3 Mina resides in a different village and no reasons are
brought on record to suggest that those were the reasons for P.W. 3 to
lodge false complaint against the appellant/accused.
21. P.W. 4 Dr. Shila examined the prosecutrix on 09.12.2014 and
on examination she found that hymen of the victim was not intact.
From the same it can be inferred that the victim was subjected to
sexual intercourse.
22. P.W. 6 Dr. Nilesh is examined so as to know whether there was
abortion of the victim or not. Dr. Nilesh opined that no finding can be
9/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::
10 CrAppeal 666 16J.odt
given about the abortion as the same was done before five years.
23. The findings recorded by P.W. 5 Dr. Nilesh is due to lapse of
considerable time between examination and the abortion done. In
such circumstances Dr. Nilesh is unable to find the symptoms of
previous abortion. However, that does not mean that there was no
abortion.
24. Looking to the evidence on record it appears that the
evidence of P.W. 1 prosecutrix and P.W. 3 Mina appears to be most
probable and reasonable. There are no reasons to disbelieve their oral
version on the background that the offence of rape has been
committed by the father himself.
25. In view of the above and looking to the cross-examination of
the witnesses, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of
P.W. 1 prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Mina, P.W. 4 Dr. Shila and P.W. 6 Dr. Nilesh,
consequently there is no substance in the appeal, therefore, it is liable
to be dismissed, accordingly it is dismissed.
26. Criminal Appeal is disposed of.
(K. L. WADANE, J.)
mkd
10/10
::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 27/10/2018 03:35:55 :::