1 apeal536.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.536 OF 2003
Vasudeo s/o Navnath Maraskolhe,
Aged about 35 years,
Sarpanch, R/o Heti Akoli,
District Wardha. …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Selu, District Wardha. …. RESPONDENT
__
Shri R.L. Khapre, Counsel for the appellant,
Shri N.H. Joshi, Addl.P.P. for the respondent.
__
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 5 th
MAY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 12-8-2003
rendered by the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha
in Sessions Trial 154/2001, by and under which the appellant-accused
is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
2 apeal536.03
imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-.
2. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for the accused
and Shri N.H. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent.
3. The prosecutrix-P.W.1 lodged oral report at Police Station
Selu on 14-4-2001 alleging that the accused subjected her to forcible
sexual intercourse. The gist of the oral report Exhibit 20 is that the
prosecutrix is a resident of Heti and is an agricultural labour. She went
to answer the nature’s call at 9-00 p.m. on 13-4-2001 when the
accused, the then Sarpanch of the Gram-Panchayat, suddenly came to
the spot, lifted the prosecutrix in his arms and took her in his adjoining
field. The accused made her fall down on the ground, and when the
prosecutrix started shouting, he tied her mouth with dupatta and then
sexually ravished her. The husband of the prosecutrix (P.W.2) who
was looking for her arrived on hearing her shouts. The accused was
committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix when P.W.2 arrived
at the spot. P.W2 caught hold of the prosecutrix and pushed him aside
from the person of the prosecutrix. The accused left the spot and the
prosecutrix and her husband went home. The prosecutrix and her
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
3 apeal536.03
husband lodged the police report on the basis of which offence
punishable under Section 376 of the IPC was registered against the
accused.
4. Investigation ensued and upon completion thereof charge-
sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Wardha who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned
Sessions Judge framed charge at Exhibit 11. The accused abjured guilt
and claimed to be tried. The defence is of total denial and false
implication.
5. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for the accused submits
that in view of the glaring inconsistencies between the evidence of the
prosecutrix and her husband P.W.2, which inconsistencies touch
material aspects, the version of the prosecutrix that she was subjected
to forcible sexual intercourse is rendered doubtful and the benefit of
the doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused. The version of
the prosecutrix is not corroborated, and is indeed belied by the medical
evidence, is the further submission. Per contra, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Shri N.H. Joshi would submit that the evidence of the
prosecutrix is implicitly reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
4 apeal536.03
and the conviction is unexceptionable. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that it is well settled that the conviction can rest on
the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix.
6. The version of P.W.1 in the substantive evidence is that
when she went to the abadi (Government land) by the side of the road
to answer the nature’s call, the accused came to the spot where she was
answering the nature’s call, tied handkerchief on her mouth, lifted her
in his arms and took her to his field which is located near the road.
She was requesting the accused to let her go and the response of the
accused was to threaten her that should she shout she would be
beaten. The accused caused her to lie down in the field, removed her
knicker, removed his banyan and towel and subjected the prosecutrix
to sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was shouting when she was
subjected to sexual intercourse which brought her husband at the
scene. The prosecutrix states that when her husband arrived at the
scene, the accused was committing sexual intercourse. Her husband
caught hold of the accused’s hair and pulled him The accused
attempted to flee, however, her husband P.W.2 held him and brought
the accused in the house. The knicker, water container and sleeper
remained at the scene of occurrence. Her husband then went to the
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
5 apeal536.03
residence of the Police Patil and informed him about the incident. In
the meanwhile, the son of the prosecutrix had detained the accused in
the house. The police arrived at the house of the prosecutrix and the
accused was taken in the police jeep to the police station accompanied
by the prosecutrix, P.W.2 and some other persons.
7. The version of the prosecutrix is at stark variance with the
contents of the oral report. It is elicited in the cross-examination that
the evidence that when the prosecutrix was about to answer the
nature’s call, the accused tied handkerchief on her mouth is an
omission. The evidence that the prosecutrix was shouting and was
threatened by the accused, when the prosecutrix was taken to the field
of the accused, is again an omission. The witness is confronted with
her version in the police statement which was to the effect that she was
taken by the accused in his field, made to lie down and that since she
was shouting, her mouth was tied with dupatta. The prosecutrix denies
to have made such statements before the police. The evidence that her
husband caught hold of the accused and the accused was brought at
the house of the prosecutrix, is an omission. The evidence that the
husband of the prosecutrix went to the house of the Police Patil and in
the meanwhile, the son of the prosecutrix detained the accused in the
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
6 apeal536.03
house, is again an omission. It is suggested to the prosecutrix that the
accused is falsely implicated due to political rivalry, which suggestion is
denied.
The omission which have come in the evidence of the
prosecutrix pertain to material facts and partake the character of
contradictions and the omissions are duly proved in the evidence of
P.W.7 API Pralhad Giri.
8. The son of the prosecutrix, who according to her, detained
the accused at her residence when her husband P.W.2 Chaitram went
to the house of the Police Patil to inform the Police Patil about the
incident, is not examined. The husband of the prosecutrix Chaitram is
examined as P.W.2. His version is that when he returned home after
having dinner at the temple, the prosecutrix was not present in the
house. His son informed that the prosecutrix had gone to answer the
call of nature. P.W.2 then states that he heard his wife shouting and
rushed towards the direction of the shouts. He reached the fieled of the
accused and saw the accused committing sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix. He caught hold of hair of the accused and separated him
from the prosecutrix. The accused threatened P.W.2 not to raise an
alarm else he would be murdered. P.W.2 then states that he and the
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
7 apeal536.03
prosecutrix reached home and the accused left the field. He noticed a
dupatta tied on the mouth of the prosecutrix. In the cross-examination,
it is elicited that the field of the accused is at a distance of 300 and 350
feet. The evidence that the accused threatened P.W.2 with murder, is
an omission. P.W.2 admits that his employer Ramesh Ingole (P.W.4)
and the accused are political rivals. P.W.2, however, denies the
suggestion that the accused is falsely implicated due to political rivalry.
9. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel is justified in submitting
that the evidence of P.W.1 prosecutrix and P.W.2 husband is
inconsistent and is indeed irreconcilable. The son of the prosecutrix is
not examined. While P.W.2 states that he caught the accused red
handed committing sexual intercourse and then the accused left the
field, the version of the prosecution is that P.W.2 apprehended the
accused and brought the accused to the residence of the prosecutrix
where he was detained by the son of the prosecutrix while P.W.2 went
to the house of the Police Patil to inform him about the incident. Shri
R.L. Khapre rightly relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Dilip and another vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3049, to
buttress the submission that the prosecution version is rendered
suspect in view of the diametrically different versions of P.W.1 and
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
8 apeal536.03
P.W.2 on material aspects of the incident.
10. P.W.8 Sangita Patil who examined the prosecutrix on
14-4-2001 deposed that no signs of injuries were observed suggesting
forcible sexual intercourse. P.W.4 Ramesh Ingole who, it has come in
evidence, is a political rival of the accused, has deposed that he saw the
accused hurriedly walking on the road infront of his house and that the
accused appeared frightened. P.W.4 has deposed that P.W.2 Chaitram
disclosed that he saw accused lying on the person of the prosecutrix.
However, this evidence is by way of omission which is duly proved in
the cross-examination of the Investigating officer. The spot
panchanama Exhibit 32, which is proved by the Investigating Officer
does not take the case of the prosecution any further. Exhibit 32
records that sleepers, a tin container and the underwear of the accused
were found at the scene of the spot, which is in the field of the accused.
The articles are not shown to the prosecutrix in her evidence. That
apart, the version of the prosecutrix is that she was bodily lifted by the
accused when she was about to answer the nature’s call and taken to
the field of the accused. It is highly improbable that the tin container
which the prosecutrix was carrying when she went to answer the
nature’s call at the side of the road would be found in the field of the
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
9 apeal536.03
accused. The version of the prosecutrix is that her mouth was tied and
then she was badly lifted which would suggest some scuffle which
would make it highly improbable that the prosecutrix would retain the
possession of the tin container.
11. It is not in dispute that neither the medical nor the forensic
evidence is of any assistance to the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.4
Ramesh Ingole must be discarded for reasons recorded supra. The son
of the prosecutrix is not examined with the result that there are two
inconsistent versions i.e. of the prosecutrix and her husband. The
evidence of the prosecutrix is marred by contradictions and
embellishments and is inconsistent with the contents of the oral report.
The prosecution version is shrouded in doubt. In my opinion, it would
be unsafe and hazardous to base the conviction on the evidence on
record.
12. The judgment and order impugned is set aside and the
accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the
IPC.
13. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. The
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::
10 apeal536.03
fine paid by the accused shall be refunded to him.
14. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
adgokar
::: Uploaded on – 05/05/2018 06/05/2018 01:42:21 :::