SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(SC) 277

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JASWANT SINGH, P.S. KAILASAM AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Tukaram and another, Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1977, D/- 15-9-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. N. Phadke, Sr. Advocate (M/s. S. V. Deshpande, V. M. Phade and N. M. Ghatate, Advocates with him), for Appellants. M/s. H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
H.R.KHANNA, M.N.SHROFF, M.V.Phadke, S.V.DESHPANDEY, V.M.Phadke, W.M.Ghatata

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Offence of rape - Passive submission - Mathura is girl who is said to have been Her parents died when she was child and she is living with her brother - Both of them worked as Laborers to earn living - Mathura used to go house for work and during course of her visits to that house came into contact with who was sisters son and was residing with latter - Contact developed into an intimacy so Ashok and Mathura decided to become husband and wife – Held, Only allegation found by High Court to have been brought home to appellant is that he fondled private parts of girl after had left her - High Court itself has taken note of fact that in first information report girl had made against serious allegations on which she had gone back at trial and acts covered by which she attributed in her deposition to instead - Those allegations were that who had caught hold of her in first instance had taken her to latrine in rear of main building had lit torch and had stared at her private parts in torch light - Now if girl could alter her position in regard to these serious allegations at will where is assurance that her word is truthful in relation to what she now says about High Court appears to have been influenced by fact that was present at police station when incident took place and that he left it after incident - This circumstance in our opinion is not inculcator and is capable of more explanations than one – Court do not therefore propose to take girl at her word in relation to appellant and hold that charge remains wholly unproved against - Appeal allowed

Judgment

KOSHAL, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated the 12th Oct. 1976 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombauy (Nagpur Bench) reversing a judgment of acquittal of the two appellants of an offence under S. 376 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on the 1st June 1974, and convicting Tukaram, appellant No. 1 of an offence under S. 354 of the Code and the second appellant names Ganpat of one under S. 376 thereof. The sentences imposed by the High Court on the two appellants are rigorous imprisonment for a year and 5 years respectively.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is this. Appellant No. 1, who is a Head Constable of police, was attached to the Desai Gunj police station in March 1972 and so was appellant No.2, who is a police constable.

Mathura (P. W. 1) is the girl who is said to have been rap\ed. Her parents died when she was a child and she is living with her brother, Gama (P. W. 3) - Both of them worked as Labourers to earn a living. Mathura (P.W. 1) used to go the house of Nushi (P. W. 2) for work and during the course of her visits to that house, came into contact with Ashok, who was the sisters son of Nushi (P. W. 2) and was residing with the latter. The contact developed into an intimacy so that Ashok and Mathura (P. W. 1) decided to become husband and wife.

On the 26th of March 1972, Gama (P. W. 3) lodged report Ex. P-8 at police station Desai Gunj alleging that Mathura (P. W. 1) had been kidnapped by Nushi (P. W. 2), her husband Laxman and the said Ashok. The report was recorded by Head Constable Baburao (P. W. 8) at whose instance all the three persons complained against as well as Mathura (P. W. 1) were brought to the police station at about 9 p. m. and who recorded the statements of the two lovers. By then it was about 10.30 p. m. and Baburao (P. W. 8) told them to go after giving them a direction that Gama (P. W. 3) shall bring a copy of the entry regarding the birth of Mathura (P. W. 1) recorded in the relevant register and himself left for his house as he had yet to take his evening meal. At that time the two appellants were present at the police station.

After Baburao (P. W. 8) had gone away, Mathura (P. W. 1), Nushi (P. W. 2), Gama (P. W. 3) and Ashok started leaving the police station. The appellants, however, asked Mathura (P. W. 1) to wait at the police station and told her companions to move out. The direction was complied with. Immediately thereafter Ganpat appellant took Mathura (P. W. 1) into a latrine situated at the rear of the main building, loosened her under-wear, lit a torch and stared at her private parts. He then dragged her to a chhapri which serves the main building as its back verandah. In the chhapri he felled her on the ground and raped her in spite of protests and stiff resistance on her part. He departed after satisfying his lust and then Tukaram appellant, who was seated on a cot nearby, came to the place where Mathura (P. W. 1) was and forrdled her private parts. He also wanted to rape her but was unable to do so for the reason that he was in a highly intoxicated condition.

Nushi (P. W. 2) Gama (P. W. 3) and Ashok, who had been waiting outside the police station for Mathura (P. W. 1) grew suspicious when they found the lights of the police station being turned off and its entrance door being closed from within. They went to the rear of the police station in order to find out what the matter was. No light was visible inside and when Nushi (P. W 2) shouted for Mathura (P. W. 1) there was no response. The noise attracted a crowd and some time later Tukaram appellant emerged from the rear of the police station and on an enquiry from Nushi (P. W. 2) stated that the girl had already left. He himself went out and shortly afterwards Mathura (P. W. 1) also emerged from the rear of the police station and informed Nushi (P. W. 2) and Gama. W. 3) that Ganpat had compelled her to undress herself and had raped


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top