Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 705 (BOM)

Anil Kisan Barde v. The State of Maharashtra

2012-03-30

A.P.LAVANDE

body2012
JUDGMENT:- By this appeal the appellant ('the accused' for short) takes exception to judgment and order dated 19th May, 2009 passed by Additional Session Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No. 64/2008 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for three months. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 8000/- has been ordered to be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under:- The prosecutrix and the accused were residents of Village Patethan, Tal. Daund. She was staying in VIIth standard. On 10/2/2008 it was holiday for her school. Her parents had left the house in the morning to attend their daily work. Her elder brother was also not in the house. 3. At about 1.30 p.m. she decided to bring grass for her she-goat. She left the house and while leaving the house, she informed her cousin Dadu that she was going to visit the field of one Nivrutti Rokade in order to collect the grass. The accused who was present there, over heard, the said message. It is further the case of the prosecution that after reaching the field of Rokade she started collecting grass from standing sugarcane crop. Within 15 minutes accused came there and asked her not to shout. He pressed her mouth and took her inside the standing sugarcane crop. Thereafter, he committed rape on her on account of which she felt unconscious. Thereafter, the accused left the place. 4. The parents of the prosecutrix returned to the house in the late evening and finding that their daughter was not in the house started searching for her. However, she could not be found. Next day in the morning i.e. on 11/2/2008 her father alongwith other relatives visited the field of Rokade and found prosecutrix with injuries. From the prosecutrix they came to know about the incident that had taken place on previous day. The prosecutrix lodged First Information Report (Exhibit 16) with Yavat Police Station. Investigation was taken up by P.I. Mr. Mohite. He visited the spot and conducted the spot panchnama. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix were seized so also the clothes worn by the accused who was arrested on the same day evening were also seized. The prosecutrix lodged First Information Report (Exhibit 16) with Yavat Police Station. Investigation was taken up by P.I. Mr. Mohite. He visited the spot and conducted the spot panchnama. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix were seized so also the clothes worn by the accused who was arrested on the same day evening were also seized. The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination. The prosecutrix was examined by PW9 Mr. Sanjay Pagare. The accused was not referred for medical examination. After conclusion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. 5. In Sessions Case No. 64/2008 the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced several documents in support of its case. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Additional Session Judge upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held that offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was made out against the accused and convicted and sentenced him as above. 6. Mrs. Miskin, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and as such no reliance can be placed on the same. Learned Counsel further submitted that Dadu, to whom prosecutrix is alleged to have given message has not been examined and as such adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. Learned Counsel further submitted that the accused was not examined by the Doctor after his arrest in clear breach of Section 53A of Cr.P.C. Which is fatal to the prosecution case. 7. According to learned Counsel the evidence led by the prosecution establishes that the accused was more than 16 years of age and as such even assuming that sexual intercourse between the accused and prosecutrix is established consensual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Learned Counsel therefore, submitted that accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence for which he has been convicted. 8. Per Contra, Mrs. Mulekar, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by medical evidence and as such the conviction of the accused cannot be faulted. Learned Counsel therefore, submitted that accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence for which he has been convicted. 8. Per Contra, Mrs. Mulekar, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated by medical evidence and as such the conviction of the accused cannot be faulted. Learned APP further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not only corroborated by medical evidence but also by scene of offence panchnama and C.A. Report which clearly prove that blood was found on the clothes of the prosecutrix and semen was found on the dupatta which was seized from the spot. According to learned A PP the evidence led by the prosecution conclusively establishes the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. In view of the arguments advanced on behalf of accused it would be appropriate to deal with the aspect as to the age of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her substantive evidence stated that her date of birth was 6/5/1993. Similarly, her father Sanjay Gaikwad also stated that date of birth of prosecutrix was 6/5/1993. The prosecution also tendered school leaving certificate Exhibit 27 of the prosecutrix through PW6 Pandharinath Savaras who was working as Head Maaster of Patethan School in 2008 where prosecutrix was schooling. He also produced Register Exhibit 26 maintained by the School. Perusal of the cross-examination by prosecutrix and her father and that of PW6 Pandarinath Savaras discloses that substantive evidence of these witnesses on the aspect of age of the prosecutrix has not been shaken in the cross-examination. Therefore, the date of birth of the prosecutrix has to be accepted as 6/5/1993. As such as on 10/2/2008 the prosecutrix was less than 15 years of age. 11. Coming to the main evidence in support of sexual assault by the accused, the prosecutrix (PW 1) has clearly supported the prosecution case. According to prosecutrix at about 4.00 p.m. on 10/2/2008 she visited the field of Rokade to collect the grass, after informing Dadu that she was going to visit the said field. She further deposed that within about IS minutes accused came there and asked her not to shout and thereafter removed her petticoat as well as nicker. According to prosecutrix at about 4.00 p.m. on 10/2/2008 she visited the field of Rokade to collect the grass, after informing Dadu that she was going to visit the said field. She further deposed that within about IS minutes accused came there and asked her not to shout and thereafter removed her petticoat as well as nicker. Inspite of her protest the accused removed his own clothes and committed rape on her. She further deposed that she felt unconscious and she was lying within sugarcane crops itself. On the next day morning at about 9.30 a.m. her parents came to the spot and she informed the incident to them. She further stated that clothes on her person were stained with blood and semen. She lodged report at police station on that day at 4.30 p.m. She identified the signature on FIR Exhibit 16. She further deposed that she was sent to Sassoon Hospital, Pune for medical examination. She further deposed that her clothes were also seized by police. She identified the clothes worn by her as articles A, B, C and D. She also identified the clothes of the accused as Articles E, F and G In cross-examination she deposed that Lahu Dhule was residing in their residence but she did not know about any dispute in between Lahu Dhule and parents of the accused. It was suggested to her that she wanted to marry the accused and had expressed her desire to marry him which suggestion was denied by her. She also denied that permission was denied by her parents since the accused belong to 'Bhilla' community. She also denied that accused was having love affair with the accused. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her parents and Bapu Kondiba. 12. The evidence of the prosecutrix stands corroborated by the First Information Report (Exhibit 16) and also by medical evidence. PW9 Dr. Sanjay Pagare deposed that on 12/2/2008 at about 7.00 p.m. he had examined the prosecutrix and on internal examination he noted the following injuries on her person. (i) Hymen was torn at 6.00 O'clock and 4.00 O' clock position; (ii) Laceration of about 1 X0.2 cm., present on posterior fourchatte; (iii) There was bleeding through cervical os; He further deposed that he conducted digital examination. (i) Hymen was torn at 6.00 O'clock and 4.00 O' clock position; (ii) Laceration of about 1 X0.2 cm., present on posterior fourchatte; (iii) There was bleeding through cervical os; He further deposed that he conducted digital examination. On the basis of results of his clinical examination and digital examination he came to the conclusion that the same was suggestive of penetrative vaginal sexual intercourse. He identified his hand-writing on the report Exhibit 38 and confirmed its contents as correct. In cross-examination he deposed that he had also noticed the marks of violence on the body of the patient and that was laceration. He did not notice any foreign hair or cotton particles present at the relevant part of the body at the time of examination. The witness maintained that the examination was suggestive of intercourse. The evidence of the prosecutrix which is corroborated by First Information Report is also corroborated by medical evidence. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the accused can be convicted for rape on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if the same inspires confidence. In the present case not only the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence but the same is corroborated by medical evidence which has not been shaken. 13. The evidence of the prosecutrix also stands corroborated by spot panchnama Exhibit 18 which has been proved by PW2 Bhausaheb Gaikwad who deposed that on 11/2/2008 he had observed that sugarcane crop was disturbed at the place of the incident. Moreover, the C.A., report Exhibit 30 discloses that on the clothes of the prosecutrix blood was found and on the dupatta and on the nicker worn by prosecutrix blood and semen were found. Thus there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of rape by the accused on the prosecutrix. 14. From the tenor of cross-examination on behalf of accused it appears that the accused claimed that he was friendly with the prosecutrix. Considering the fact that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was less than 15 years of age, even if it is assumed that intercourse was with the consent of the prosecutrix, the same would not help the accused. In view of Section 375 of IPC, the consent of prosecutrix being under 16 years of age was immaterial. Considering the fact that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix was less than 15 years of age, even if it is assumed that intercourse was with the consent of the prosecutrix, the same would not help the accused. In view of Section 375 of IPC, the consent of prosecutrix being under 16 years of age was immaterial. Therefore, even if it is assumed that there was consensual intercourse in view of Section 375 IPC, the accused is liable to be convicted for rape. 15. Insofar as submission made by learned Counsel for the accused that Dadu was not examined is concerned, in my considered opinion, the same cannot be termed as fatal in view of the cogent evidence of the prosecutrix which is corroborated by other evidence to which reference has been made above. 16. Insofar as non-examination of the accused under Section 53-A of Cr. P.C. is concerned, no doubt Section 53-A provides that when a person is arrested on the charge of committing rape, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner in a hospital run by Government or by local Authority to undertake medical examination of the arrested person. However, upon a plain reading of Section 53-A it is difficult to held that said provision is mandatory and breach of it would entail in acquittal of the accused charged for rape. No doubt, there is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution in not submitting the accused for medical examination which would have provided evidence for or against the prosecution. However, such lapse on the part of the prosecution cannot be termed as fatal to the prosecution in view of the cogent evidence led by the prosecution to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. 17. Thus, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence the findings recorded by learned Additional Session Judge in the impugned judgment and order cannot be faulted. The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused do not warrant interference in appeal. 18. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the Appeal. Consequently, Appeal stands dismissed. 19. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Appellant who is presently in jail. Appeal dismissed.