The prosecution failed to prove the charges of rape and wrongful restraint beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and DNA evidence ruling out the appellant's involvement.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. In the instant appeal, there is challenge to judgment and order dated 21.04.2005 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2004, recording guilt of the appellant for offence under Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. Victim, a 19 years old girl, gave statement that while she was going to the field to collect fodder at around 2.00 p.m., present appellant Laxman intercepted her way, took her in the crops, undressed her, got himself undressed and had sexual intercourse and thereafter left. Out of fear, victim did not report the incident to her parents. After 4 to 5 months, she started experiencing pain in abdomen and even missed her menses. Mother took her to doctor and during such examination, it was revealed that she was pregnant. When mother questioned about it, she reported act of accused. On her above statement, Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur registered crime which was investigated by PW-8, and on gathering sufficient evidence, accused was chargesheeted.

3. At trial before learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, vide Sessions Case No. 23 of 2004, on appreciation of prosecution evidence, learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution story as proved and sentenced appellant to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 376 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 341 of IPC.

The instant appeal is the offshoot of above judgment.

EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT

4. The role and status of the witnesses examined by prosecution in support of its case, and the sum and substance of their evidence can be summarized as under:

PW-1 Mother of victim, who is examined at Exhibit 18, deposed that she took daughter for medical examination due to bleeding from urine and swelling to extremities. That time at Latur, doctor disclosed that her daughter was pregnant, and on being questioned, her daughter reported that appellant obstructed her and committed forceful sexual intercourse in a field.

PW-2 Father deposed that daughter was taken to the hospital on account of bleeding. There, doctor disclosed that his daughter was pregnant and therefore she was taken to Ambajogai for operation.

PW-3 Victim gave evidence as under:

“one month of after last Diwali, I had gone to the field for fetching fodder and it was 2 p.m. At that time accused Laxman obstructed me and pressed my mouth. Accused then took me in a hybrid crop. The accused removed my all clothes. He has also removed his all clothes. Accused laid down me and thereafter he inserted his penis into my vagina. Some white sticky substance fall on my vagina. Thereafter the accused left the spot.”

PW-4 Pancha to spot panchanama Exhibit 25.

PW-5 Dr. Datar, Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Latur, deposed that sonography report of victim revealed vesicular mole and she reported it to Gandhi Chowk Police Station vide communication Exhibit 27.

PW-6 Dr. Watre, another medical expert at Woman’s Hospital Latur, testified bout admission of victim, she being examined and even this medical expert reached to an opinion that there was vesicular mole with peri-metastasis right lung with huge cardiomegaly with severe anemia, and patient referred to Ambajogai. She identified certificate Exhibit 31.

PW-7 Dr. Vaidya, Medical Officer at SRT Medical Hospital Ambajogai, also conducted sonography and diagnosed vesicular mole. He performed operation, collected sample of mole for CA and samples were forwarded to police.

PW-8 PSI Rathod was the Investigating Officer [IO].

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the appellant:

5. Pointing to the above evidence, learned counsel for the appellant took exception to the findings and conclusion by putting forth a case that at the first count, there is inordinate delay in reporting the occurrence, i.e. of almost five months. That, testimony of victim is full of material omissions, variances and improvements. He submitte