IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S.Gadkari, Milind N.Jadhav, JJ.
Hitesh Santosh Vartak – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Atrocities Act - Criminal Bail Application - Sec. 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. (3)(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of coercive sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The appellant sought bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and there was no injury to the prosecutrix.
Finding of the Court:
The court found consistency in the statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses regarding the coercive sexual assault. The court noted the appellant's prior acquittals and his propensity towards committing crimes against women. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision to reject the bail application.
Issues: Consent in the relationship, nature of the crime, and the appellant's criminal background.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statements of the prosecutrix, the eyewitness, and the friend of the appellant, along with the appellant's prior acquittals, to conclude that the appellant's release on bail may lead to tampering with prosecution evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision to reject the bail application.
JUDGMENT
MILIND N.JADHAV, J. - This Appeal is filed under Sec. 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act") to challenge the Order dtd. 29/8/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag-Raigad (for short "Trial Court") rejecting the Criminal Bail Application of Appellant in a case registered under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and under Ss. (3)(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act with Pen Police Station, Raigad vide C.R. No.133 of 2022.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is as under:-
2.1. That when victim was alone in the house Appellant came there alongwith his friend and entered in the house. He held her hand, the victim pulled it back and ran inside the house and Appellant followed her and took her into the bathroom. He tied both her hands with handkerchief and ravished her. Meanwhile the elder sister of the victim came home. The door of the house was open so she came inside and looked for the victim. Since the door of the bathroom was closed, she pushed the door and saw the victim and Appellant together. Seeing her sister the victim and Appellant put on their clothes. The sister slapped the Appellant and he asked her to forgive him by admitting his mistake and fled away. On the report of victim police registered the present crime and Appellant was arrested.
3. It is seen from the record that, investigation of the present case is completed and chargesheet has been filed on 12/8/2022. Incident occurred on 18/6/2022. Investigating Officer (IO) has recorded the statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") which include the statements of Naresh Kende (who accompanied Appellant on the date and time of incident), the prosecutrix and her elder sister Dipti Yadav. We have perused the statements of witnesses as recorded by the IO.
4. We have heard Mr. Deokar, learned Advocate for Appellant and Mr. Ajay Patil, learned APP at length and with their able assistance perused the record.
5. Mr. Deokar would argue that a case under Sec. 376 IPC is not made out since there is a possibility of a love affair between the prosecutrix and Appellant and the relationship was consensual. That there was no injury caused to the prosecutrix during the act. That she herself opened the door and let the Appellant inside her house and most importantly both of them were acquainted with each other prior to the incident as the prosecutrix's family had rented the Appellant's premises earlier. He has therefore prayed for enlargement on bail.
6. It is seen that Appellant is 35 years old whereas the prosecutrix is 20 years old. In her statement before the police and the Magistrate under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has clearly stated that she did not consent for having sexual relation with the Appellant. She has further stated that Appellant tied both her hands with handkerchief and forced him on her. Statement of Dipti Yadav, eyewitness and elder sister of the prosecutrix is relevant and important. She has stated that she opened the bathroom door and found both of them inside without any clothes. That the prosecutrix immediately informed her that Appellant had forcibly assaulted her sexually. That she immediately slapped the Appellant thereafter. This shows presence of Appellant at the incident spot. Corroboration is further found in the statement given by Naresh Kende, the friend of Appellant who has stated that he alongwith Appellant went to the prosecutrix's house; that he sat outside and the Appellant was inside the bathroom alongwith the prosecutrix. This statement also proves presence of the Appellant at the incident spot.
7. Learned APP has placed before us copy of Order dtd. 5/11/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, 3rd Court, Pen acquitting Appellant of the charges under Sec. 354D read with 506 IPC in an incident pertaining to 17/3/2019, wherein Appe
Consistency in witness statements and the accused's criminal background can influence the court's decision on bail applications in serious criminal cases.
The main legal point established is that bail can be granted under Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act based on the prosecutrix's allegations, lack of sustained injury, and the need for the appell....
The judgment establishes that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should not be applied if the complaint does not make out a prima fac....
In cases involving minors, any consent given is legally irrelevant, and the protection of minors from sexual exploitation is paramount, as established by the provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.