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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. A. SANAP
Chandu @ Chandrashekhar Keshaorao Chambhare - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 500/2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 501/2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 507/2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 528/2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 568/2011
Decided On : 24-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr M. V. Bute, Advocate for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 501 of 2011, 507 of 2011, 528 of 2011
Mr R. M. Daga, Advocate for the appellants in Appeal Nos. 500 of 2011 and 568 of 2011
Mr. M. K. Pathan, APP for the State in all connected appeals

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the primary witness turns hostile, and reliance on inconsistent testimony and improperly handled DNA evidence is insufficient for conviction.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(2)(g), 366, and 341 - Criminal appeals against conviction for gang rape - Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines - Prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of the prosecutrix, who later turned hostile and resiled from her statements - Court emphasized the need for credible evidence and the importance of corroboration, especially in sexual assault cases - The learned Judge's reliance on the prosecutrix's inconsistent testimony and DNA evidence was deemed misplaced due to lack of proper chain of custody and preservation of samples. (Paras 1-27)

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Burden of proof - The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the primary witness turns hostile - The court cannot convict based on unreliable evidence. (Paras 12, 26)

Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix was allegedly abducted and gang-raped by eight accused on 24.06.2010. The case was built on her initial report and subsequent statements, but she later denied the occurrence during trial.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused due to the prosecutrix's retraction and the lack of corroborative evidence.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the admissibility of DNA evidence, and the adequacy of the prosecution's evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide a credible witness and the lack of proper handling of DNA evidence led to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted.

Result: All criminal appeals are allowed, and the convictions are quashed.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1 All these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (for short, ‘the learned Judge’) and therefore, the appeals are being disposed of by common judgment. The particulars with regard to the accused numbers, appeal numbers and sentence can be tabulated as follows:

Criminal Appeal No.Accused No.Name of accusedSentence
500 of 20111Chandu @ Chandrashekhar S/o. Keshaorao ChambhareAccused Nos. 1 to 8 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year each for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.
7Shankar S/o. Kawduji Tadas
8Ganesh S/o. Bapurao Dhage
501 of 20112Prashant Ashokrao Satone
507 of 20113Ganesh Kashirao Rade
528 of 20116Pravin Santoshrao Surkar
4Sunil Vitthalrao Warghane
568 of 20115Khushal S/o. Rambhau Masulkar

The accused Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 are also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year each for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The accused No.7 is further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 Background facts:

PW-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the prosecutrix’)is the informant. The case of the prosecution, which can be unfolded from the report lodged by the prosecutrix and other materials, is that on 24.06.2010 she was not feeling well and therefore, she went to Government Hospital Allipur. On that day, the hospital was closed and therefore, in order to come back to her village Pauni, she was waiting near Yeshwant School Allipur for auto-rickshaw. At about 4:00 p.m., accused No. 7 Shankar Tadas came to the said spot with his auto- rickshaw. Four passengers were already sitting in his auto. The prosecutrix boarded the said auto. Accused No. 7 Shankar Tadas did not stop the auto-rickshaw at village Pauni and took the prosecutrix to Shirasgaon. On the bridge, he allowed the remaining four passengers to alight from the auto-rickshaw. Accused No.7 then took the prosecutrix in his auto-rickshaw to Kanchangaon bus-stop. Accused No.4 Sunil Warghane was at Kanchangaon bus-stop with his auto-rickshaw “Monalika”. It is stated that at the said place accused No.7 Shankar Tadas forcibly made the prosecutrix to sit in the said auto-rickshaw of accused No. 4 Sunil Warghane. Accused No. 7 alongwith another accused No. 3 Ganesh Rade and accused No. 4 sat with the prosecutrix. Accused No. 2 Prashant Satone was driving said auto-rickshaw. Accused No.1 Chandu Chambhare and accused No. 8 Ganesh Dhage proceeded ahead of the auto- rickshaw on the motorcycle. They proceeded towards Kanchangaon. The auto-rickshaw followed them. They took the prosecutrix near a nallah situated between village Shirud and Yeranwadi road via Allipur. They instructed the prosecutrix to get down from the auto-rickshaw but she refused. Thereupon, accused No.1 assaulted and dragged her in the nallah. Accused No.1 forcibly removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He used condom. It is stated that thereafter, accused No.2 Prashant Satone, accused No.3-Ganesh Rade, accused No.4-Sunil Warghane and accused No.7 Shankar Tadas one after another, by using condom, committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In the meantime, accused No. 5 Khushal Masulkar came in his auto-rickshaw alongwith accused No. 6 Pravin Surkar. Accused Nos.5 & 6 also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, at about 9:00 p.m., they brought the prosecutrix at Bhagwa Phata in the auto-rickshaw and dropped her there. Then, they fled from the spot.

3 It was a night tim

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