The judgment emphasizes the need for substantive evidence and highlights that suspicion cannot substitute proof. It also underscores the importance of scrutinizing circumstantial evidence in a careful and meticulous manner.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - By this appeal, the State has challenged the judgment dated 14/08/2012, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No.19 of 2010. The respondent accused was acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has wrongly mentioned Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the opening paragraph of the judgment. Neither in the FIR, nor in the charge framed, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been attracted.

2. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Prosecutor, who has taken us through the appeal paper book and the original record & proceedings, threadbare. He has analyzed the testimonies of all 9 witnesses. He has strenuously contended that the version of the prosecutrix has to be properly appreciated and, in the absence of any ulterior or oblique motive on the part of the prosecutrix in framing the accused, the Court has to consider such testimonies in the light of the entire oral and documentary evidence available.

3. At the very outset, we need to record our strong displeasure about the choice of a particular word, which has been repeatedly used by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon (Coram : Shri. S. V. Ranpise) while recording the testimony of the prosecutrix, the PW1 and the testimony of the I.O., P.W.9 and also in the body of the judgment. The Trial Court has used the words 'F*****' and "F******". These words are used in slang language, are treated to be foul words and are utterly disrespectful to women. We have also noticed that though the Marathi version of the testimony of the prosecutrix indicates certain Marathi words used by her likeetc., yet the Trial Court has repeatedly used the above mentioned objectionable words, while recording the English version of her testimony.

4. The complaint of the prosecutrix was that the accused, who is her cousin father-in-law, has committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On the night prior to 25/03/2010, she had served dinner to the accused as her mother-in-law (PW7), the wife of the accused and the son of the accused had gone outstation to Vadner for a religious function. On 25/03/2010, at around 10.30 a.m., while she was drawing water from a jar, the accused grabbed her from behind. She questioned him as to what was he doing and he allegedly said that she should not worry. It was the third day of her menstrual cycle. He forcibly pushed her and laid her on the ground. He then lifted her sari and committed an offence. She stated that since she was partially affected by paralysis, she was unable to push him away. He took advantage of her weak condition. After committing intercourse for 4 to 5 minutes, he threatened her with death if she narrated the incident to anybody. She was frightened and weeping. After her mother-in-law came back, she narrated the incident to her. After her father-in-law returned from work, she narrated the incident to him as well. Her husband had started from Pune and after he returned in the evening, there was a consultation and it was decided to lodge the police complaint. Hence, the FIR was registered at about 9.00 p.m. on 25/03/2010.

5. In the examination-in-chief at Exh.11, the prosecutrix (PW1), has stated that she was residing in a hut which had no door, adjacent to the hut of the accused. She had given him kick blows, because she was suffering from paralysis to her left hand. In Cross-examination, she admitted that her husband has two wives. The second wife has given birth to two children. The prosecutrix is childless as her first child died and she suffered abortion during the second pregnancy. Her husband is living at Pune along with his second wife and children and does not financially support the prosecutrix.

6. In her lengthy cross-examination, she claimed to have suffered injuries on her head and on her back. There was a swelling (b