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

2018 Supreme(Bom) 622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
P.R. BORA, J.
Santosh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2016
Decided On : 13-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :E.P. Sawant, M.P. Kale, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.P. Tiwari, A.P.P.

The testimony of a victim of sexual assault is vital and can be relied upon to convict the accused, provided it inspires confidence and is found to be reliable.

Headnote:

IPC - Rape - Sections 376, 323 - The judgment discusses the delay in lodging the FIR, the speech impairment of the prosecutrix, and the medical evidence. The court rejects the appeal and upholds the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the offense of rape under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC. The prosecutrix, a physically handicapped and speech-impaired individual, alleged that the accused committed rape on her. The delay in lodging the FIR, the speech impairment of the prosecutrix, and the medical evidence were key points of contention.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the prosecutrix. The court also rejected the argument that the speech impairment of the prosecutrix rendered her testimony unreliable. The medical evidence was found to support the prosecutrix's allegation of rape.

Issues: The main issues were the delay in lodging the FIR, the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony due to her speech impairment, and the medical evidence supporting the allegation of rape.

Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR was considered reasonable given the circumstances of the case. The court held that the speech impairment of the prosecutrix did not render her testimony unreliable. The medical evidence was found to support the allegation of rape.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, in Sessions Trial No.24/2013, decided on 20th of April, 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offense punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of IPC. For the offense under Section 376 of IPC, the appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days for the offense punishable under Section 323 of the IPC.

2. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant, who is hereinafter referred to as the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix on 27th of January, 2013, at about 2 p.m. at the house of the said prosecutrix. As is revealing from the material on record, the prosecutrix is physically handicapped and also suffers from speech impairment. It was alleged that on the day of the incident, when the mother and brother of the prosecutrix had left the house, and prosecutrix alone was at her house, the accused reached there and asked the prosecutrix to allow him to have sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix refused for the same whereupon the accused, by using force against the prosecutrix, had forcible intercourse with her. Because of the shouts given by the prosecutrix, two ladies, namely, Gavlanbaii and Khobrabai came on the spot. By that time the accused had fled from the said spot. The prosecutrix disclosed the alleged incident to her mother after she returned to home in the evening. The report of the alleged incident was lodged on 2nd of February, 2013 at Police Station, Pimpaladari. On the report so lodged by the prosecutrix, offense under Sections 376 and 323 of the IPC was registered against the accused and the investigation was set in motion. The prosecutrix was sent for her medical examination at Sub District Hospital, Gangakhed. She was also referred to the Psychiatrist at Civil Hospital, Parbhani. The Investigating Officer visited the spot of occurrence, prepared spot panchnama, seized the clothes on person of the prosecutrix, and recorded the statements of the necessary witnesses. The blood and vaginal swab samples as well as the clothes on the person of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical analysis and the reports were obtained. The accused was arrested on the same day and the clothes on his person were also seized by the Police. They were also forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer. After completing investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gangakhed. Since the offense under Section 376 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, committed the case to the Sessions Court at Gangakhed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused on 16.3.2015. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Prosecution evidence commenced with the testimony of the mother of the prosecutrix, namely, Chandrakala, and was concluded after the evidence of Investigating Officer, namely, Ajit Tukaram Chintala was recorded. The accused has denied the charges levelled against him and has taken the defense of his false implication. According to the accused, since he did not concede to the proposal given by the mother of the prosecutrix that he should marry with the prosecutrix, a false complaint has been filed against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after assessing the oral and documentary evidence brought on record held the accused guilty for an offense punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as well as under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer the punishment as noted hereinabove. Agg






























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