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

2007 Supreme(Bom) 1007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.
Bharat @ Pintya Baburao Nerlekar - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.370 of 2002
Decided on : July 23, 2007.

Advocates appeared
Mr. Sai Kumar for appellant.
Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State.

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 452-Rape of 11 years old minor girl by a neighbour-Conviction and sentence-Propriety of.-The accused was of 22 years of age on the date of incident. When he entered the house of the prosecutrix, Savita and the prosecutrix were present. Though he entered from the rear door of the house, the prosecutrix did not take any objection and when he asked Savita to leave the house of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix did not object to the same as well. She admitted in her cross-examination that she did not raise any alarm even though she was alone with the accused in her house after Savita left the same and the accused had bolted the main door from inside. She also admitted that when the accused lifted her, put her on the bed and removed her undergarments, she did not raise any alarm. Even after he committed the sexual intercourse with her, she did not raise any alarm nor did she tell either to Savita or any of her family members regarding the said incident after the accused left her house and her grandmother and aunt noticed bleeding from her clothes. The father of the prosecutrix i.e. PW 4 has filed an affidavit in this appeal and stated that the prosecutrix was married in May 2006 and is living a happy married life. He has further stated that he and his daughter are not interested in pursuing the matter and he has absolutely no objection if this Court takes a lenient view for the appellant’s release. Taking into consideration these obtaining circumstances, I am satisfied that the order of sentence passed by the trial Court and impugned in this appeal requires to be modified. The accused is in custody since 26.4.2001.

       In the premises, the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the Vth Ad-hoc Asst. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 177 of 2001 on 6.2.2002 and impugned in this appeal for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC is hereby confirmed. The conviction of the accused under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC is also hereby confirmed. However, the sentence for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) is modified and the accused is sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for 15 days. The accused will be entitled for the set off, as he is in custody since 26.4.2007.

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge at Kolhapur on 6/2/2002 in Sessions Case No.177 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 452 of IPC. For the first offence the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one year and for the second offence he has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. As per the prosecution the complainant Shivaji Shankar Parit, PW 4 was the resident of village Shittur, Taluka Shalinwadi, Dist. Kolhapur and his family consisted of wife, daughter prosecutrix aged 11 years and son Akshay aged three years and the house of his parents was separate. Adjacent to his house was the house of his parents as well as his wife’s brother’s house was located there. His wife had gone to village Masur-Chikali on 18/4/2001 (Wednesday) for a festival. On 21/4/2001 he had left his house to go to his family near the village itself and at about 12 to 12-30 noon he received a message from Kumari Savita Anand Patil that his mother Dhondubai had called him home immediately and he, therefore, returned home and noticed that the prosecutrix was sleeping on the floor and his mother and sister were sitting near her. On his enquiry with his mother, she told him that the prosecutrix was suffering from severe bleeding and, therefore, she asked him to call a doctor. He went to the Rural Hospital at Shittur and at his request Dr. Satpute came to his house and on examination of the prosecutrix prescribed some medicines as well as gave one injection. Her clothes were soaked and, therefore, were changed. Dr. Satpute told him that her bleeding would stop but as a matter of precaution she should be taken to a hospital at Karad. She was, therefore, taken to Ekopa Clinic at Karad where Dr.Suhas Deshpande - PW 9 admitted her at about 5 p.m. Sonography test was also done. On the next day i.e. on 22/4/2001 she regained consciousness and the complainant enquired with her regarding the reason of bleeding and he was told by her that at about 11 a.m. on the earlier day she had gone to her grand-mother’s house, took her food and returned to her house. Her friend Savita had accompanied her. Within short time the accused entered her house and asked Savita to go out of the house and bolted the door from inside. The accused then took her on the folded bed, he pressed here mouth by his arm, removed her undergarment and committed sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was discharged on 23/4/2001 at about 9 a.m. and Dr. Deshpande asked the complainant to take her to the Cottage Hospital at Karad along with all the papers and accordingly he went there. He was asked about whether the complaint was lodged with the police and thereafter he went to the Karad Police Station where he was asked to go to the police station at Shahuwadi where he lodged the complaint (Exhibit 20) which came to be registered as C.R.No.40/2001. She was sent for medical examination and the accused was taken in custody on 26/4/2001. The clothes on her person as well as on the person of the accused were seized and were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed on 2/7/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 452 of IPC.

3. The prosecution examined the prosecutrix PW 1, Rajaram Dattatraya Ghatage - PW 2, Aba Ramchandra Parit - PW 3, Complainant Shivaji Shankar Parit - PW 4, Dr.Subhash Ramchandra Jagtap - PW 5, Tukaram Vithal Gurav - PW 6, Umesh Ramchandra Hajare - PW 7, Gajanan Hindurao Jadhav - PW 8, Dr.Suhas Suresh Deshpande - PW 9 and Dr. Sarita Babasaheb Thorat - PW 10. The statement of the accused und



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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