Bombay High Court
Suresh Shankar Dethe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 September, 2015
Bench: A.M. Thipsay
Tilak 1/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69 of 1995
Suresh Shankar Dethe .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
---
Mrs.Prabha V. Badadare, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Deepak Thakre, APP for the Respondent State.
ig ---
CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATED : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2015
---
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1 This Appeal is directed against the judgment and
order delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, convicting the
appellant of an offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC
and 506 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has
imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7(seven) years
and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with respect to the offence punishable
under section 376 of the IPC and a sentence of Rigorous
Imprisonment for 6(six) months with respect to the offence
punishable under section 506 II of the IPC upon the appellant.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon
him, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present
Appeal, praying that the impugned judgment of conviction be set
aside and that he be acquitted.
Tilak 2/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
2 I have heard Mrs.Prabha Badadare, learned counsel
for the appellant. I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, APP for the
State. I have been taken through the entire evidence adduced
during the trial. I have carefully gone through the impugned
judgment.
3 The case of the prosecution, as put forth before the
trial Court in brief, be stated thus :-
The victim (name not mentioned to prevent disclosure
of identity) is a married woman. At the material time, she was
staying in village Peth with her mother-in-law Janabai (PW 3).
Her two children were also staying with her. Her husband, at the
material time, was staying at Mumbai. The appellant who used to
reside at Village Manchar situate about 10 kms away from village
Peth, is related to the victim through her father as also through
her father-in-law. He is the cousin of her father as well as of her
father-in-law. The appellant's daughter was to get married on 13 th
December 1992. The appellant's wife had to go to Mumbai in the
second week of November for making necessary purchases for the
marriage. The appellant, therefore, asked the mother-in-law of
the victim to send the victim to his house to do the household
chores in the absence of his wife. The victim then with her two
children went to the house of the appellant to reside there. She
initially went to his house on 17 th November 1992, and stayed
there till 21st November 1992. However, at that time, her
menstruation period commenced, and as the appellant was not
ready to accept the food prepared by her during that period, she
went back to Peth on 21 st November 1992. She again returned to
Tilak 3/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
the house of the appellant on 24th November 1992. On that day, in
the evening, she prepared the food as usual. After having dinner,
the victim, the appellant and the others slept. In the midnight, the
appellant gave a call for the victim. He initially demanded water
and then asked the victim to prepare tea for him. When the victim
went to the kitchen to prepare tea, the appellant came behind her,
pressed her mouth, forcibly took her to a cot kept in the kitchen
and committed rape on her. The appellant repeated his act after
about 15 minutes. The appellant threatened the victim that he
would kill her children if she disclosed the incident to anyone.
The victim then along with her children, left the house of the
appellant in early morning and came back to her house at Peth by
a truck. She reported the matter to her mother-in-law Smt.Janabai
(PW 3). Janabai, however, told her to wait till the marriage of the
appellant's daughter would be over. The victim, however, was
feeling uncomfortable and therefore, wrote to her father Changdeo
(PW 2) and called him. When the father went to the house of the
victim at Peth on 17th December 1992, she informed him of the
incident and then, as per his advice came to Manchar and lodged a
report against the appellant, alleging commission of the aforesaid
offences.
4 On completion of investigation, the appellant was
prosecuted and after the trial, was convicted and sentenced as
aforesaid.
5 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the version of the victim is unreliable. According to her, the
alleged incident had taken place on 24 th November 1992, but the
Tilak 4/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
FIR came to be lodged only on 7th December 1992. According to
her, the delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal and
renders the testimony of the victim, unreliable. She also
submitted that the defence of the appellant i.e. that he had
advanced some money as loan to the father of the victim, and as
the father was not in a position to repay the amount, the appellant
was falsely implicated so as to be able to avoid the repayment.
6 In her evidence, the victim has clearly described the
incident. She has also said that immediately after the incident, i.e.
in the early morning, she left the house of the appellant and came
to her house at Peth. She also speaks of having told Janabai about
the incident and about Janabai having told her that nothing
should be done till the marriage of the daughter of the appellant
wold be over, and that thereafter, matter would be resolved by
holding a meeting. She then speaks of calling her father,
disclosing the incident to him, and thereafter lodging a report.
7 In the cross-examination of the victim, nothing which
would discredit her, could be elicited. After carefully going
through her evidence in the cross-examination, I am unable to see
that the defence has been successful in creating any doubt about
the testimony of the victim, which, in itself, is consistent,
convincing and reliable.
8 The testimony of the victim finds corroboration from
the evidence of her father Changdeo (PW 2) and her mother-in-
law Janabai (PW 3). A suggestion was given to Changdeo (PW 2)
in his cross-examination, that the appellant had initially lent an
Tilak 5/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
amount of Rs.5,000/-, and then an amount of Rs.2,000/- to him,
and that, the appellant was demanding back the said amount. It
was put to Changdeo (PW 2) that the appellant had been falsely
involved in the case so as to avoid paying the said amount back.
These suggestions have been denied by Changdeo (PW 2).
Janabai (PW 3) has also stated about the victim coming back from
the house of the appellant, and telling her that the appellant had
raped her. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to Janabai
that a prosecution (in respect of an offence punishable under
section 498A of the IPC) had been lodged by the victim against
Janabai (PW 3) and that, Janabai had been deposing falsely
against the appellant so that the victim should not prosecute the
said case diligently. Though Janabai admitted launching of such
prosecution at the instance of the victim, she denied that she was
giving false evidence.
9 The evidence of Chandrabhaga (PW 5) neighbor of
the appellant also lends corroboration to the version of the victim.
Now, this Chandrabhaga is related to the appellant. According to
her, after the incident and in the early morning, the victim had
met her, and told her that the appellant had raped her. This
appears to have taken place immediately before the victim left the
house of the appellant and went to her house at Peth. In the cross-
examination of Chandrabhaga, it was suggested to her that there
was a dispute over land between her and the appellant, but this
suggestion was denied by her. Chandrabhaga admitted in the
cross-examination that the incident disclosed by the victim to her
was not disclosed to anyone by Chandrabhaga, till it was, later on
disclosed to the police.
Tilak 6/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
10 I have carefully gone through the impugned
judgment. The learned Judge observed that the evidence of victim
was quite reliable. The learned Judge subjected victim's evidence
to a careful scrutiny, and came to the conclusion that there was no
possibility of victim having made a false complaint of rape against
the appellant. The learned trial Judge also held that victim's
evidence was corroborated by the other evidence.
11 Before this Court, the only contention that has been
advanced is the late disclosure of the incident by the victim. It is
also submitted that even Janabai or Chandrabhaga (PW 5) did not
disclose the incident to anyone. Though this is factually correct, I
am not able to draw an inference from this that the victim had
falsely implicated the appellant.
12 It is clear that the appellant was in a dominating
position over the victim. He is related to the victim from her
father's side as well as from the side of her father and his father-
in-law. This is obvious from the fact that he could authoritatively
ask the victim to be sent to his house to do the household chores
in the absence of his wife. The victim evidently was in a
vulnerable position. She had not been residing with her husband,
and apparently also had some quarrels with her mother-in-law.
The evidence of the victim shows that the appellant in the
midnight asked the victim to get up and give water to him. He
then asked her to prepare tea. The victim complied with the same.
It appears that the appellant was judging how submissive or docile
the victim was, and what was the possibility of her putting up a
stiff resistance to what he intended to do.
Tilak 7/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
13 The fact that the appellant had called her at his house,
that she had gone there, and that she was doing the household
work in the absence of the appellant's wife, is not in dispute at all.
That she left the house of the appellant abruptly, is also clear form
the evidence. The evidence does not indicate that she waited till
the wife of the appellant came back, and only thereafter, left the
appellant's house. On the contrary, it indicates that she left the
house of the appellant quite arbitrarily in the early morning, and
came to Peth by a truck. The conduct of the victim supports her
version.
14 What is significant is there is absolutely no motive for
the victim to have implicated the appellant falsely. The suggestion
of the appellant that the victim's father had been given some
money by him and to avoid repayment thereof, a false complaint
had been lodged by the victim, cannot be accepted. As a matter of
fact, this theory is not very consistent in the context of the
argument about a delayed complaint having been lodged. If a
false complaint was to be lodged, there was no necessity for the
victim or her father to deliberately delay the matter, and then
report the matter to the police.
15 The appreciation of evidence as done by the learned
trial Judge, does not seem to be suffering from any error or
infirmity. The reasoning of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and
the conclusion arrived at by him appears to be proper and legal.
Consequently, there is no case for interfering with the impugned
judgment and order.
Tilak 8/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
16 The Appeal is dismissed.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J)
Tilak 9/9 (22)APEAL-69-95
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original
signed Judgment/Order.
