1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR
Criminal Revision Application No. 40/2009
Raju Diwalu Uketone, aged 28 years,
Occ. Labourer, r/o Chicholi, Tah. Mouda,
Dist. Nagpur (In Jail) .. APPLICANT
.. Versus ..
State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO
Police Station, Mouda, Dist. Nagpur.
.. NON APPLICANT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for non applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J.
Date of Reserving the Judgment:- 12.11.2009
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment:- 07.12.2009
JUDGMENT
1. This revision application is filed challenging judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 6/2005, confirming the judgment and order passed by 16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 206/2002, dated 31.01.2005. Facts of the case are as under.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 22. Prosecution case is that the prosecutrix PW3 aged about 17 years had gone to the field of Panjabrao for doing labour work on wages. The prosecutrix at lunch time went to nearby Well to fetch water for drinking. At that time, accused caught hold of her, took her forcibly below a Neem tree, fell her down and after removing her clothes had sexual intercourse with her. She, therefore, lodged report Exh.-10 with Police. Crime was registered at Police Station, Mouda. During investigation, accused was arrested. The accused as well as prosecutrix were medically examined. Spot Panchanama was prepared.
The statement of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge Exh.-4 came to be framed against the accused i.e. applicant herein by learned 16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 3The prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in support of its case before the 16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur. After appreciation of the evidence on record and after appreciating the arguments, evidence on behalf of the applicant as well as prosecution, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted the applicant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. The applicant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 6/2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur by, judgment and order dated 18.01.2007 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 206/2002. Hence, this revision is filed by the applicant/accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses out of which three witnesses namely PW3-prosecutrix, PW6-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 4Jaibai and PW7-Murlidhar, who are mother and father of the prosecutrix. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to learned counsel, there are other witnesses examined by the prosecution who could not through any light on the story of prosecution so as to corroborate the same. The medical evidence in respect of injuries and fact of rape being negative helps the applicant. Further, Chemical Analyser's report is also of no help to the prosecution as the results are negative. Therefore, the prosecution story is only based on evidence of three witnesses.
5. According to the learned counsel, the prosecutrix claimed that the incident occurred at 2.00 p.m. but the fact that she immediately had come in contact with two labourers namely Sunanda Uikey and Rekha Thakare, but had not disclosed anything regarding the occurrence to them. Even if the incident had occurred and the prosecutrix was frightened, the same thing ought ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 5 to have been noticed by the said ladies and their evidence would have brought credence to the story of the prosecution. However, both of the said ladies are not examined. Further, the prosecutrix had continued to work in the field till evening and thereafter went back and informed her mother regarding the occurrence. This conduct of the prosecutrix belies the story of prosecution.
6. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 is on the point that the applicant confessed his guilt on the next day morning and offered to marry with the prosecutrix and as the father of the applicant refused the proposal, the complaint has been lodged. However, the said claim is found to be missing in the statements of the police and as such the omissions are improvement made in the story by these witnesses. Further, if on the next day of occurrence, i.e. on 28.02.2002, the proposal was turned down by the father of the applicant, no explanation is given by the prosecution as to why the First Information Report was not lodged till 02.03.2002. In such circumstances, the said evidence deserves to be rejected. It is further submitted ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 6 that the appellate Court has not independently scrutinized the evidence in appeal and merely confirmed the judgment and order passed by Assistant Sessions Judge and in view of judgment in Nandlal Dattusing Pardeshi & Ors...vs..State of Maharashtra; 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 840 in revision application, evidence can be appreciated and, therefore, the learned counsel would submit that this Court can look into the evidence to decide whether evidence inspiring confidence or not.
7. It is further submitted that it is the settled position of law that when two views are possible from the evidence and material on record, the view favourable to the accused needs to be accepted. The circumstances of the present case clearly demonstrate the case is in favour of the applicant/accused, therefore, the evidence of the prosecution deserves to be rejected and the applicant is entitled to acquittal. It is further submitted that since 18.01.2007, the applicant is in jail custody and prior to the said judgment of lower appellate Court, the applicant was in Magisterial Custody Remand during the course of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 7 trial till he was released on bail. In such circumstances, the applicant is in jail for more than three years. Section 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives powers of appellate Courts and under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the revisional Courts. Therefore, it is submitted that in that view of the matter, by virtue of Section 386 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is competent to alter the sentence than the sentence awarded by the Courts below in case this Court is not convinced for granting benefit of doubt for acquitting the applicant of the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his contention, placed reliance on reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the cased of Jagannivasan ..vs..
State of Kerala; 1995 CRI.L. J. 3239. The learned counsel invited my attention to para 5 of the said judgment and submitted that the prosecutrix even after alleged incident taken place did not inform the incident either to the two ladies who were present in the entire ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:13 ::: 8 field and also till evening to her mother. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this clearly creates doubt in mind about the prosecution story and genuineness of the complaint filed by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in Nandlal Dattusing Pardeshi & Ors. supra to contend that in the revision also Court can appreciate and look into the evidence. The learned counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Mahadeo Mahajan ..vs..
State of Maharashtra; 1981 Bom. C. R. 7 and submitted that it is possible in the revisional jurisdiction to look into the circumstantial evidence and the Court can appreciate the evidence brought on record. It is further submitted that under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution is entitled to read the contents of Panchanama as evidence still as relevant contents are capable of two constructions the one in favour of the petitioner will have to be accepted. It is further submitted that since the proposal of the marriage was turned down, false case of rape is filed against the applicant. Learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 9 counsel, at the cost of repetition, again submitted that the prosecution case is not supported by medical evidence or Chemical Analyser's report. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges by setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below.
9. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the prosecutrix, in her examination-in-chief and in the complaint has categorically stated about the incident. The learned A.P.P.
invited my attention to the contents of examination-in-
chief of the prosecutrix and, therefore, submitted that if the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence, that itself is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that if the complaint and evidence of the prosecutrix is trustworthy the said evidence alone is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned A.P.P. further submitted that there was no intentional delay in lodging the First Information Report.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 10It is stated in the First Information Report itself that the applicant/accused came to the house of the prosecutrix on the next day and proposal for marriage was given by the applicant. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the statement of PW6-Jaibai and PW7-Murlidhar under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mentions that the accused came to the house of prosecutrix on the next day morning asking them to accept the proposal of marriage between the applicant and the prosecutrix. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the delay in filing First Information Report has been explained by the prosecution. Both the courts have accepted the explanation offered by the prosecution.
Learned counsel further submitted that father of the accused asked the parents of complainant to wait for three days to communicate his decision about marriage of the complainant and accused. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the spot panchanama and submitted that place of incidence was underneath Neem tree. The Chilly crop, which was standing at the place of incidence, suffered damage during the said incident and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 11 the same can be gathered from the Panchanama carried out about the place of incident. Learned A.P.P,. in reply to the contention of counsel appearing for the applicant about delay in filing the complaint, invited my attention to the reported judgment in Karnel Singh ..vs.. State of M.P.; AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2472 and more particularly para 7 of the said judgment. Learned A.P.P.
further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Apex Court to contend that if evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence then in case of rape no further corroboration is necessary. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on Rafiq ..vs.. State of Uttar Pradesh; AIR 1981 Supreme Court 96.
Therefore, the sum and substance of the arguments advanced by learned A.P.P. is that evidence of the prosecutrix, inspires confidence and therefore no further corroboration is necessary. The learned A.P.P.
further submitted that PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar corroborated that evidence of prosecutrix on material particulars. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the delay has been properly explained by the prosecution and in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 12 case the delay if any, it is not fatal for the case of the prosecution. Both the courts have, after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded concurrent findings and no case is made out to upset the concurrent findings by exercising revisional jurisdiction. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is nothing brought on record by accused so as to disbelieve the prosecution story merely because there are few omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The fact remains that statement/evidence of the prosecutrix has remained unshaken. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the revision is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at great length and also to the learned A.P.P. for the State.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to some of the judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of scope of revision. This Court, in the case of Balkrishna Pandurang Moghe..vs..State of Maharashtra and anr; 1998 (3) Mh. L. J. 331, in para ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 13 31 of the judgment, has observed as under:-
"31. As indicated earlier, at the behest of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the evidence and we find no illegality or perversity in the approach or findings of the two Courts below. We may only refer to few decisions on the limitations of the powers of this Court in a Criminal revision. In Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960, The Apex Court held in para 4 that the jurisdiction of the High Court in Criminal Revision Application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a reappreciation of the evidence. Similarly in Pathumma and anr vs. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1436, the Apex Court held that High Court was in error in making reassessment of the evidence and holding that the child was not an illegitimate child while dealing with the application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court had, in its revisional jurisdiction, substituted its own findings and disturbed the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate on the question of fact. This was not approved by the Apex Court and order of the High Court was set aside. In State of Karnataka vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others, 1993 Cri.L.J. 1029, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 14 Apex Court held that when the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had, on appreciation of the evidence on record, reached a concurrent finding that charge against the respondent accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt, ordinarily it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below by reappreciating the evidence in a revisional jurisdiction. The Apex Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and restored that of the Appellate Court."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others with Satish Kaur Sahni ..vs..
Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others;
(2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 659; held that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be exercised as second appellate power. In exercise of revisional power the High Court cannot undertake indepth and minute re-examination of entire evidence and upset concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court.
In the case of Raj Kumar ..vs.. State of Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 15 Pradesh; (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 76. In para 10 of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"10. In State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu it was held that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the Sessions Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when there was no error of fact or law arrived at by the trial court or the Sessions Judge."
12. In the case of Ghanshyam s/o Vithal Garje ..vs.. State of Maharashtra; 2009 (1) Mh. L. J.
(Cri.) 299 in para 11 held that, "The Revisional Court cannot reappreciate the evidence in the exercise of the Revisional jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960, held that jurisdiction of the High Court in Criminal Revisional jurisdiction is severely restricted. It is held that the High Court cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence in the the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. It is also well settled that the Revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect int he procedure or there is a manifest ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 16 error or patent error committed in ignorance of law which has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed, ordinarily, in the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction unless it is demonstrated that the findings are based on perfunctory appreciation and the process of finding is without well grounded reasoning...."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka ..vs.. Appa Balu Ingale and others;
AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1126; held that the concurrent findings arrived at by two Courts below are not to be interferred with by the High Court in the absence of any special circumstances or unless they are perverse.
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court, the present revision application required to be considered.
14. On going through the judgment and orders passed by Courts below, both the Courts have appreciated the statement of prosecutrix and her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 17 evidence in examination-in-chief and cross-examination and the same evidence has been accepted and the applicant herein is convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the courts have held that there is corroboration to the evidence of prosecutrix from the evidence of PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar.
Therefore, both the Courts below have held that evidence of prosecutrix coupled with evidence of PW6 and PW7 is sufficient to hold that the applicant has committed the offence of rape and is liable to conviction.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that thought the incident in question took place at about 2.00 p.m. on the day of incident, the said incident was not narrated by the prosecutrix to the other two women, who were working in nearby fields and secondly in spite of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix remained in the field and continued working till evening without disclosing the incident in question, which creates doubt about the credibility of the evidence of prosecutrix.
In this respect, it has come on record that two other ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 18 women, who were also working in the field of same owner, were working in a field which is after two fields from the field in which the incident in question took place.
Therefore, it is not the case that two other women labourers were working in the same field or immediately in the next field but those were working in a field after two fields from the field in which the prosecutrix was working and where the incident in question had taken place.
On careful perusal of of the deposition of the prosecutrix, she has categorically stated that she shouted for help and she tried to resist but then the accused took her underneath Neem tree and committed rape. It is the contention of accused that at least the prosecutrix should have disclosed the incident to those two women working in the nearby fields after she met them, is not accepted by both the courts below. In normal course, narration of such an incident would definitely damage the reputation of the victim in the society and not only that it may also create difficulties in future to the victim. That apart, with apprehension in mind that if the incident is narrated to other two women, they may tell the said incident to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 19 villagers or other members of the society, which may have adverse effect to the prosecutrix and, therefore, the said incident was not narrated by the prosecutrix to the said women. The same has been accepted by both the Courts below. Therefore, this contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant is also required to be rejected.
16. Another contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that till evening the prosecutrix continued to work in the field is concerned, she was working in the the said field as labour and with a fear and apprehension in mind she did not disclose the incident till the evening to anyone. However, in the evening she narrated the said incident to her parents. Merely because she continued to work from 2.00 p.m. till eventing would not throw the case of prosecution and discard the evidence of the prosecutrix when in unequivocal words she has stated that accused committed rape on her.
17. Turning to the contention of the counsel for the applicant that in the next day morning accused went ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 20 to the house of the prosecutrix and met father of the prosecutrix and put forth proposal of marriage between prosecutrix and accused, finds place in statements of PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned A.P.P. is right in placing reliance on the cross-examination of the parents of the prosecutrix, in which they have stated that the accused came to their house, expressed his desire to get married with the prosecutrix. There is delay in filing the First Information Report because father of the accused told parents of the prosecutrix that he will tell after three days whether he is agreeable to the marriage of prosecutrix and the accused, as stated by PW6 and PW7, has been accepted by both the Courts below. The present case stands on a different footing than other cases because accused/applicant is nephew of the father of prosecutrix.
There is no reason for the parents of the prosecutrix to rope in the accused/applicant in a false case when he is directly in blood relation with the prosecutrix and her father. As rightly concluded by the Courts below that in normal course, parents of the prosecutrix will not go to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 21 the extent of filing false First Information Report that too against the accused, who is directly in relation with them.
18. On the point that Medical Report and Chemical Analyzer's report are not conclusive, observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq ..vs.. State of Uttar Pradesh can usefully be referred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 5 observed as under:-
"Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Indeed, from place to place from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law this area be introduced through a new type of procedural tyranny. The same observation holds good regarding the presence or absence of injuries on the person of aggressor or the aggressed."
Also, in the case of Karnel Singh (supra) the Supreme Court held that, "Evidence of prosecutrix need ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 22 not be tested with same amount of suspicion as that of accomplice. Rule of prudence that her evidence must be corroborated in material particulars has no application."
By number of pronouncements of this Court as well as Supreme Court, by this time it is well settled that in rape case, evidence of prosecutrix stands on higher footing than any other witness. If statement or evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence that alone is sufficient to hold the person guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and hence I do not find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel on the point of Medical Report and Chemical Analyzer's report.
19. So far as delay in filing the First Information Report is concerned, para 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnel Singh (supra) can be usefully referred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case held that the delay in lodging complaint in such case does not necessarily indicate that the version of prosecutrix is false. In the present case, the prosecution ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 23 has explained the delay and both the courts have accepted the explanation offered by the prosecution.
20. Though learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to reported judgment of this Court in the case of Nandlal Dattusing Pardeshi & Ors. (supra) and in case of Ashok Mahadeo Mahajan (supra) cited supra to contend that in revision there can be appreciation and reappreciation of evidence, in the facts of the present case, I find that both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and findings recorded by both the Courts are not perverse and those are in consonance with the evidence brought on record by prosecution.
21. Though learned counsel for the applicant contended that in given set of facts and circumstances and evidence brought on record by prosecution, it cannot be convincingly said that the incident in question has taken place and the accused has committed rape and also medical evidence and Chemical Anaylers report do not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 24 support the prosecution story and, therefore, lenient view may be taken, his contention is required to be appreciated in the light of pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh ..vs..
Chandrika (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 638. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "The concept of "plea bargaining" is not recognized and is against public policy under our criminal justice system. Section 320 CrPC provides for compounding of certain offences with the permission of the court and certain others even without permission of the court. Except the above, the concept of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not permissible. This method of short-circuiting the hearing and deciding the criminal appeals or cases involving serious offences requires no encouragement. Neither the State nor the Public Prosecutor nor even the Judge can bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in consideration of getting flea-bite sentence by pleading guilty. The Court has to decide it on merits. If the accused confesses his guilt, an appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. Further, the approach of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 25 court in appeal or revision should be to find out whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of the evidence on record. If he is guilty, an appropriate sentence is required to be imposed or maintained. If the appellant or his counsel submits that he is not challenging the order of conviction, as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the court's conscience must be satisfied before passing the final order that the said concession is based on the evidence on record. In such cases, sentence commensurate with the crime committed by the accused is required to be imposed.
Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the court that as he is pleading guilty the sentence be reduced."
22. In the present case though offence committed by the applicant is heinous in nature, both the Courts have taken a lenient view and the applicant is convicted only for seven years. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am afraid ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 26 that the prayer of the applicant to release him on sentence already undergone can be entertained.
23. Taking into consideration the impugned judgment and order and also other material made available for perusal, it clearly emerges that the evidence of prosecutrix remains unshaken. There is further corroboration to her evidence of PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar.
There is no reason to falsely implicate the applicant by prosecutrix or her parents since the accused is nephew of PW7 Murlidhar. The accused is directly in blood relation with the prosecutrix and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be even doubted that the prosecutrix or her father would go the extent to make false allegations. One thing is certain that the applicant went to the house of the prosecutrix and put forth the proposal of marriage, having been realised that he has committed offence as alleged by prosecution on the earlier date. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and fact that there are concurrent findings recorded by courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 27 record by the prosecution, no perversity is demonstrated in those findings so as to take different view. Therefore, the present revision application shall fail. There may be some omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, still the main story of the prosecution remains intact since the evidence of the prosecutrix has been accepted in toto by courts below and also courts below have relied upon evidence of PW6 Jaibai and PW7 Murlidhar for corroboration with the evidence of the prosecutrix.
In addition to the above, it is also required to be noted that the offence in question is not an ordinary offence. It is a heinous offence leaving deep impact on the mind of the victim. Point of view of the society towards the victim of such incident is always indifferent that too for no fault on her part. In the present case, loss caused to the life and reputation of the victim/prosecutrix cannot go unattended by acquitting the applicant, more particularly when there are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The revision application is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 ::: 2824. In view of above, the revision application stands rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
Misc. Criminal Applications, if any, stand disposed of in view of rejection of main application.
JUDGE kahale ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:23:14 :::