apeal51.15.J.odt 1

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

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.51 OF 2015

State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Saoli, Dist. Chandrapur. ……. APPELLANT

…V E R S U S…

Amrat s/o Ramchandra Jadhav,
Aged about 22 years,
Occupation: Labour,
R/o Dabhala Tahsil Tarana,
District Ujjain (M.P.). ……. RESPONDENT
——————————————————————————————-
Shri S.M. Ukey, A.P.P. for Appellant/State.
None for Respondent.
——————————————————————————————-

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND
M.G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE: th
26 MARCH, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.G. GIRATKAR, J.)

1] State has filed the present appeal against the

judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in

Sessions Case No.01/2013. The case of the prosecution against

the respondent/accused in short is as under:

Prosecutrix was residing with her parents at

::: Uploaded on – 27/03/2018 28/03/2018 02:15:57 :::
apeal51.15.J.odt 2

Raiyatwari Jam. She was learning in 10th standard in Nav Bharat

Vidyalaya, Vhyad Bujrug. Accused Amrut Jadhav was resident of

village Dabhala, Tahsil Tarana, District Ujjain (M.P.). Prior to two

years, accused was married to one Anita, the daughter of Maroti

Burande resident of village Raiyatwari. The wife of accused being

the relative of the prosecutrix, prosecutrix used to meet Anita wife

of accused. Accused was acquainted with the prosecutrix.

2] On 17.10.2012 prosecutrix was going to school by

walk and when she reached near bus stand, the accused met her

and eloped her under the promise of marriage. Accused did sexual

intercourse. When she informed her parents on phone. On the

report of father of the prosecutrix offence was registered against

the accused. Crime was registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 363, 366 and 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal

Code. Crime was investigated by A.P.I. Shri Alone. After complete

investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Chandrapur who in turn committed the case to the

Court of Session at Chandrapur.

::: Uploaded on – 27/03/2018 28/03/2018 02:15:57 :::
apeal51.15.J.odt 3

3] Charge was framed at Exh.8, same was read over and

explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined in all total nine witnesses. At the

conclusion of the trial accused came to be acquitted. Hence the

present appeal by the State.

4] Heard Shri S.M. Ukey, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the appellant/State. None appeared for the

respondent.

4] Perused the evidence on record. Evidence of P.W.1

prosecutrix, is very material, she has stated in her evidence that

accused eloped her and he did sexual intercourse with her, but in

her cross-examination material omissions are brought on record.

She deposed in her examination-in-chief that before the incident,

he did sexual intercourse on 14.10.2012. But, she did not disclose

to her parents or anybody. This material fact not stated by her, in

her police statement.

5] She has stated that on 17.10.2012 accused met her,

::: Uploaded on – 27/03/2018 28/03/2018 02:15:57 :::
apeal51.15.J.odt 4

when she was going to school eloped under the promise of

marriage. In the cross-examination she has admitted that on

17.10.2012 she along with one Tejaswini boarded at Jam bus

stand in bus going towards Gadchiroli. Tejaswini went alone and

she went to Vhyad bus stand by walking. Accused met her at the

bus stand of Vhyad. She was already knowing that accused was

married. At Vhyad bus stand some other passengers were also

present. She did not ask him that he was already married and how

he was going to perform marriage with her. She could tell

anybody till she reached village of accused. When she reached to

the village of accused his parents, brothers, brother’s wife and

their children were present in the house. House of accused was of

two rooms. In one room accused was residing and in another

room his brother was residing with his family. There was no any

separate room. She informed on phone to her father that she was

at the house of accused and she was safe. From the perusal of her

cross-examination, evidence of prosecutrix is not reliable. At the

time of incident she was having understanding age. She was

knowing that accused was already married.

::: Uploaded on – 27/03/2018 28/03/2018 02:15:57 :::
apeal51.15.J.odt 5

6] Medical evidence stated by P.W.8 Dr. Roshani Raut

show that she examined the prosecutrix. She narrated the history

of sexual intercourse on 14.09.2012, 18.10.2012, 19.10.2012 and

20.10.2012. On examination she noticed no injuries over external

orifice of vagina. Her hymen was ruptured. In cross-examination

she has admitted that hymen rupture was old and there is

possibility that hymen might have ruptured before two years from

the date of medical examination.

7] From the perusal of evidence of prosecutrix her

evidence is not reliable. She has stated that accused met her on

the way, but her cross-examination shows that she along with her

girl friend boarded the bus went up to Gadchiroli she alone

returned back at Vhyad and thereafter she proceeded along with

the accused. She stated in her cross-examination that there were

only two rooms, brother of accused was residing with his family in

one room. The parents of accused were residing in another room.

In such circumstances, it was not possible for the accused to do

sexual intercourse. Prosecutrix was knowing, that accused was

married with her relative. In such circumstances, that she went

::: Uploaded on – 27/03/2018 28/03/2018 02:15:57 :::
apeal51.15.J.odt 6

along with the accused because he promised to marry with her is

not reliable. Learned Trial Court rightly recorded its finding.

We find no merit in the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the

following order:

O R D E R

[i] Criminal Appeal No.51/2005 is dismissed.

[ii] The bail bond of respondent/accused stand

cancelled.

[iii] R P be sent back to the Trial Court.

JUDGE JUDGE

NSN

::: Uploaded on – 27/03/2018 28/03/2018 02:15:57 :::