APEAL.95.08
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2008

The State of Maharashtra,
through the Police Station
Officer, Police Station Buldana,
District Buldana. …. APPELLANT.

// VERSUS //

Ruprao @ Gajanan Devrao
Natekar, aged about 28 years,
Occ. Teacher, R/o Raipur,
Tq. Buldhana, Dist. Buldana. …. RESPONDENT.

Mr. N.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant,

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI MANISH PITALE, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 30, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER MANISH PITALE, J.)

1] The State has filed this appeal challenging judgment and

order dated 2.11.2007 passed by the Sessions Court, Buldana,

whereby the respondent (accused) has been acquitted of offence

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 03/07/2018 01:34:41 :::

APEAL.95.08
2

2] The prosecution case, in brief, was that the prosecutrix

(PW.1) approached the police on 2.8.2006 claiming that the

respondent with whom she was allegedly in love committed acts of

forcible sexual intercourse with her on 14.4.2006 and 15.4.2006 and

thereafter by giving an allurement of marriage he again committed

sexual intercourse with her on 15.7.2006. On this basis, an FIR was

registered against the respondent and the police undertook

investigation. Upon filing of charge-sheet, the respondent was

charged on 4.7.2007 for having committed offence under Section 376

of Indian Penal Code on the aforesaid three dates. In support of its

case, prosecution examined five witnesses of whom the material

witnesses were the prosecutrix PW.1 and her mother PW.2.

3] In her deposition before the Court, the prosecutrix (PW.1)

claimed that on 14.4.2006 and 15.4.2006 the respondent forcibly had

sexual intercourse with her and that she had shouted loudly when

such incidents occurred. She also claimed that on 30.7.2006

respondent called her to his house and again committed sexual

intercourse with her. It was her statement in the examination-in-chief

that throughout these incidents the respondent was threatening her

that he would not marry her if she did not cooperate with him for such

::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 03/07/2018 01:34:41 :::
APEAL.95.08
3

acts, but in the cross-examination it has come on record that the said

witness had not mentioned anything about the respondent forcibly

committing sexual intercourse with her or that she had shouted when

such incidents occurred and further that the respondent had

threatened her of not marrying if she did not perform the acts with

him. These omissions were put to the Investigating Officer and they

stood proved.

4] In so far as mother of the prosecutrix, i.e. PW.2 is

concerned, her evidence in respect of the alleged incidents of

14.4.2006, 15.4.2006 and 30.7.2006 is based on the versions told to

her by her daughter, i.e. the prosecutrix. Therefore, to that extent her

evidence is of hearsay nature. In her evidence, she has claimed that

after the first two incidents of forcible sexual intercourse, upon being

told by the prosecutrix, she and her husband had met the parents and

other relatives of the respondent and in the said meeting marriage

between the prosecutrix and the respondent was arranged. It is

significant that this fact does not find mention in her statement to the

police and such omission has also been proved in the evidence of the

Investigating Officer.

::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 03/07/2018 01:34:41 :::

APEAL.95.08
4

5] Therefore, the evidence of the two material witnesses in

the present case, i.e. prosecutrix PW.1 and her mother PW.2 does

not support the case of the prosecution. Since the complaint was

lodged on 2.8.2006, the medical examination of the prosecutrix was

conducted on 4.8.2006 and the clothes were seized on 5.8.2006.

Obviously, nothing incriminating has come on record in the forensic

report and the medical examination report of the prosecutrix dated

4.8.2006 does not show any signs of the prosecutrix being forcibly

raped on the dates claimed by her. The last incident even according

to the prosecutrix was on 30.7.2006 and, therefore, there was hardly

any chance of any incriminating material being found either in the

medical examination report or the forensic reports.

6] The trial Court has taken into consideration the entire

material on record and it has found that the evidence of the two

material witnesses, prosecutrix PW.1 and her mother PW.2 are full of

material omissions and contradictions. The medical evidence has

also been considered and upon proper analysis of the entire material

on record, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. On

the basis of material on record, it is evident that the view taken by the

::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 03/07/2018 01:34:41 :::
APEAL.95.08
5

trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous and it is certainly a possible

view. When two views are possible in the face of the material on

record, the benefit must accrue to the accused.

7] In the light of the above, since there is no merit in the

present appeal, it is dismissed and the trial Court judgment is

confirmed.

Consequently, the bail bonds of the respondent are

cancelled.

JUDGE
JUDGE .

J.

::: Uploaded on – 02/07/2018 03/07/2018 01:34:41 :::