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) 678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, P.R. BORA, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra – Petitioner
Versus
Ravindra Kashinath Ghodke – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2003
Decided On : 03-05-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.D. Ghayal, APP.
For the Respondent:G.V. Wani, Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 342 & 376 - FIR – Quash - Police Station effect that accused in his house committed rape on his minor niece that investigation was set in motion- Contents of FIR- reveal that on sometimes in when informant was sitting in his shop in front of his house came there with steal containing vegetables therein in her one hand and note in other hand- She was weeping at that time wife then called him in house and informed that prosecutrix was raped by accused- She also informed to that while prosecutrix was coming towards their house accused took prosecutrix in his house and locking door of house from inside committed rape on her- She also informed that blood was oozing from private part of prosecutrix- She also told that prosecutrix was threatened by accused not to disclose said incident and that he had given prosecutrix –Held, Court that why police did not record statement of prosecutrix immediately also is unwarranted- As has come on record prosecutrix was in hospital- She was operated in Civil Hospital at and was there in hospital - In such circumstances if her statement was recorded on 8th of May in no case it can be said that intentionally delay was committed in recording statement case of prosecution are equally unjust and uncalled for- Even if it is assumed that prosecutrix did not raise any alarm would it mean that she was a consenting party? Further how can nondetection of semen in vaginal swab and absence of any injury to penis of accused be grounds to doubt or disbelieve testimony of tender aged prosecutrix- It is well settled that to constitute offence of rape what needs be established is act of penetration and not seminal emission- medical evidence showing that there were degree tears and vagina of was swollen proves beyond doubt that there was deep penetration- Law is equally well settled that absence of injury to male organ of accused may not lead to an inference in all cases that accused did not have sexual intercourse prosecution has beyond reasonable doubt proved that accused wrongfully confined prosecutrix in his house and committed rape on her- medical evidence fully establishes that accused had penetrative sexual intercourse with prosecutrix who at relevant time was a minor girl aged about nine years- We therefore hold accused guilty for offences punishable and pass following order accused shall surrender before trial Court to undergo sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him within four weeks failing which trial Court shall take all necessary steps to secure presence of accused and send him to jail to serve out sentence imposed upon him - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

P.R. Bora, J.

1. The State has preferred the present appeal against the Judgment and order passed by First Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.142/2001 decided on 13th November, 2002. Present respondent was prosecuted in the aforesaid sessions case for the offences under Sections 342 & 376 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.P.C.'). Respondent was alleged to have wrongly confined the prosecutrix a minor girl aged about 9 years in his house. He was also alleged to have committed rape on the said minor girl. Learned Sessions Judge however acquitted the accused of both the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by, the State has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

2. On report lodged by one Bapurao Eknath Patil (PW7) in the Police Station at Kasoda on 03.05.2001 to the effect that, the accused, in his house committed rape on his minor niece that the investigation was set in motion. Contents of F.I.R. reveal that, on 03.05.2001 sometimes in between 12:00 noon to 01:00 p.m. when informant Bapurao Eknath Patil (PW7) was sitting in his shop in front of his house, the prosecutrix came there with steal tiffin containing vegetables therein in her one hand and a 10 rupees note in other hand. She was weeping at that time. The wife of Bapurao Patil (PW7) then called him in the house and informed that, the prosecutrix was raped by the accused. She also informed to Bapurao Patil (PW7) that, while the prosecutrix was coming towards their house, the accused, took the prosecutrix in his house and locking the door of the house from inside committed rape on her. She also informed that, the blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix. She also told that, the prosecutrix was threatened by the accused not to disclose the said incident and that he had given Rs.10/to the prosecutrix.

3. On receiving such information, Bapurao Patil (PW7) rushed to the house of the accused, however it was found to be locked from outside. Bapurao Patil (PW7) therefore rushed to the house of the mother of the accused where the sister of the accused was also residing and enquired with them about the accused. The mother of the accused informed Bapurao Patil (PW7) that, the accused had been to them in the early morning and was demanding Rs. 500/- for attending marriage. The mother of the accused also informed Bapurao Patil (PW7) that, since she could not give the money as demanded by the accused, he quarreled with her and subsequently by obtaining the money from other person had gone to village Dapora, Dist. Jalgaon at his father-in-laws place. Bapurao Patil (PW7) then went to Police Station Kasoda along with the prosecutrix and lodged the report of the alleged incident.

4. On the basis of the report so lodged by Bapurao Patil (PW7), crime was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 342 and 376 of I.P.C. The victim girl was immediately referred by the police authorities for medical examination to Primary Health Centre at Kasoda, where she was examined by Dr. Suresh Girdhar Patil (PW6). On her examination by Dr. Suresh Patil (PW6), it was noticed that, there was vaginal bleeding due to traumatic forceful intercourse. It was also noticed that, her vagina was swollen. Dr. Suresh Patil (PW6) had also noticed that, injury to the vagina of the prosecutrix was fresh. Dr. Suresh Patil (PW6) after administrating tetanus injection referred the prosecutrix to the Civil Hospital at Jalgaon for further treatment.

5. In the meantime, the spot panchanama was prepared and the articles which were found existing on the spot of occurrence were sized by the police. The police also recorded the statements of necessary witnesses. The sample of the blood, vaginal swab etc. were collected. In the meantime, the accused was also arrested and his medical examination was got done. His blood and semen samples were also collected. Investigating Officer then forwarded the articles, recovered from the spot of occurrence as well as


















































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