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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 1618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
A.I.S. Cheema, J.
Baburao s/o Marotrao Dakhore & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 482 of 2015 & 181 of 2016
Decided On : 25-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- S.S. Choudhari, Mr. S.N. Rodge
For the Respondents: V.N. Patil Jadhav, Anjali Bajpai Dube

The main legal point established is the reliance on victim testimony, school records, and statutory presumptions to establish guilt in cases of sexual offences against children.

Headnote:

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Conviction under Section 4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the victim was 16 years old at the time of filing the complaint, and the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The court upheld the conviction under Section 4 of the Act, but acknowledged that the offence proved was aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Fact of the Case:

The victim, a minor orphan, filed an FIR alleging repeated forcible rape by the accused over eight months. The accused denied the charges, claiming political rivalry and lack of evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the victim's testimony consistent and corroborative, and the accused's defense unsubstantiated. It concluded that the accused had committed the offence as charged.

Issues: The issues included the victim's age, delay in filing the FIR, and the accused's defense of political rivalry.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, school records, and the presumption under Section 29 of the Act to establish the accused's guilt. It also considered the lack of evidence for the accused's defense.

Final Decision: The court rejected the appeal by the accused, upheld the conviction under Section 4 of the Act, and directed an increase in compensation to the victim. It also directed the District Legal Services Authority to pursue adequate compensation and rehabilitation for the victim.

JUDGMENT :

A.I.S. Cheema, J.

Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 has been filed by the Appellant original accused who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.1 of 2013 on 29th April 2015 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act" in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The trial Court directed that if fine is recovered, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) from the same be paid to the Complainant as compensation. The case of the prosecutrix (without naming, and hereafter referred as "victim") has been referred to the District Victim Compensation Board, Hingoli with recommendation to give adequate compensation to the victim.

2. Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 has been filed by the victim seeking enhancement in the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees One lakh).

3. The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows:-

(A) On 25th September 2013 at about 5.00 p.m. the victim filed F.I.R. (Exhibit 37) at Akhada Balapur Police Station. She mentioned her age as 16 years and occupation to be labour, residing at Nai Abadi, Jamgavan, TqKalamnuri. The F.I.R. mentioned that she was doing labour work to support herself as well as her younger sister. She does not have her parents or brother and she only has a sister as named in the F.I.R. (examined as PW14). (I will refer to PW14 Only as sister of victim). The parents died when the victim and her sister were children and both the sisters were then residing with their grandmother at Jamgavan. The grandmother died two years back and thereafter both the sisters have continued to reside in the house of the grandmother. In the same village, she has maternal uncle Khandu (PW2) and maternal aunt but they never visit the victim. Her paternal uncle and aunt reside at Khambala but they never visit the victim and her sister. Gangubai Khude (PW5) is neighbour and beyond the house of Gangubai, the accused Baburao Dakhore lives.

The F.I.R. mentions regarding the incident that about eight months before, accused Baburao came to the house of victim and made allegation expressing suspicion that the victim had stolen his ring and he told both the sisters that they should not reside there. So saying, the accused drove out the two sisters outside their house. Both the sisters went to maternal uncle Khandoji at Jamgavan and told him as to what has happened and he explained to the accused and helped them to reenter their house. After this incident, after about eight days, in the night at about 9.30 p.m., sister of victim went to the house of accused to watch T.V. At that time victim was alone at home. The accused came to the house of the victim which is a room made of tins and moment he came, without letting her understand anything, he took out handkerchief from his pocket and pressed it against her mouth and tied the same to her mouth. She tried to resist but accused did not let her succeed. The F.I.R. then give details as to how rape was committed on the victim and it is stated that the accused then threatened her that if she tells the incident to anybody, she and her sister would be killed. When the rape was committed, the accused had, with the help of Odhani of the victim, tied both her hands behind. After the rape and after giving threat, the accused went away. After some time her sister came back home and she opened the handkerchief which was tied to the mouth of the victim and the Odhani by which her hands had been tied. She told the incident to her sister. Out of fear they did not tell the incident to anybody. The F.I.R. stated that as they did not tell the incident to anybody, the accused started coming to places where the victim went for labour work and used to signal her to come aside and took opportunities to further forcibl







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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

AI

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