Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
Shri Sadashio s/o. Rengo Kotangale - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.512 OF 2014
Decided On : 05-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Akash Gupta, counsel (appointed)
For the Respondent: Mr. A.V. Palshikar, Additional Public Prosecutor
The central legal point established is the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence and applying the appropriate legal provisions to the established facts.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under section 376 and 326 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 376, Section 326, Section 354, Section 324 - The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to sexual assault, grievous hurt, and outraging the modesty of a woman. The court analyzed the inconsistencies in the evidence, medical reports, and spot panchanama to reach its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged forcible sexual intercourse and pouring of corrosive substance on her vagina. The defense challenged the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony and the medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court acquitted the accused of the offense under section 376 of IPC but convicted him under section 354 and 324 of IPC based on the evidence of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix and pouring corrosive substance on her vagina.
Issues: Credibility of prosecutrix's testimony, inconsistencies in evidence, and appropriate legal provisions for the convicted offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while the evidence did not support the charge of forcible sexual intercourse, it established the offense of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix and pouring corrosive substance on her vagina.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted of the offense under section 376 of IPC, convicted under section 354 and 324 of IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine.
1. Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 7.10.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions Trial 82 of 2012, by and under which, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) is convicted of offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- and is further convicted of offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.
2. Heard Shri. Akash Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. The learned counsel for the accused Shri. Akash Gupta submits, that the judgment and order impugned militates against the weight of evidence on record. The prosecution has not proved, much less beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, is the submission. The learned counsel would submit that the evidence of the prosecutrix is inconsistent with the medical evidence and is not corroborated, au contraire, is rendered suspect, by the spot panchanama and the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the accused would further submit, that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions judge that the accused caused grievous hurt to the prosecutrix by pouring corrosive substance (acid) into the vagina is not consistent with the oral and circumstantial evidence on record. The learned counsel for the accused Shri. Akash Gupta would urge, arguendo and in the alternate, that even if the entire evidence is accepted at face value, the offence made out would at the most be under section 354 and 324 of IPC.
4. Per contra, Shri A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would support the judgment and order impugned. The marshalling of evidence and the findings recorded, are both an unexceptionable, is the submission.
5. The gist of the prosecution case, as can be culled out from the oral report lodged by the prosecutrix on 13.8.2012 at 5.00 pm, is thus:
The prosecutrix states in the oral report, which is marked Exh. 38, on the record of the trial Court, that she is a widow and earns livelihood by cultivating ½ acre agricultural land, which was the ancestral property of her late husband. The prosecutrix has two sons namely Padmakar and Ratnakar who are engaged in manual labour at Nagpur and whose visits to the village are few and far in between. The prosecutrix lives alone in the village.
The prosecutrix states in the oral report that on 13.8.2012 between 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. she went to her agricultural field to cut grass, she cut the grass and tied and stacked the bales. Between 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. when she went to the adjoining canal to answer nature's call, she was accosted by the accused, the prosecutrix stood up and asked the accused as to why he had come. The accused replied “rq>h xkaM yky djrks”, lifted the prosecutrix on shoulders, carried her to the bushes, made her lay on the grass, threatened to kill the prosecutrix and then committed forcible sexual intercourse twice. The prosecutrix further states in the report that after ravishing her, the accused took out a bottle from pocket and poured some liquid on the private part of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix cried out in pain due to the burning sensation. The accused again threatened the prosecutrix with physical harm and fled.
The oral report was reduced to writing and the printed First Information Report is Exh. 39. On the basis of the report, offence punishable under section 376 and 506 of IPC was registered, the accused was arrested on 13.8.2012, both the prosecutrix and the accused were medically examined and the reports obtained. The spot panchanama was prepared on 14.8.2012, the clothes wore by the prosecutrix were seized on 15.8.2012, presumab
