State Of Mah.Thr.P.S.O.Sewagram vs Prashant Sahebrao Thool
2016 Latest Caselaw 1814 Bom

                                            1                                         apeal316.03




                                                                                     
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      




                                                             
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.316 OF 2003




                                                            
     The State of Maharashtra, 
     through the Police Station Officer, 
     P.S. Sewagram, District - Wardha.                                ....       APPELLANT




                                               
               
                             
                         VERSUS
                            
     Prashant Sahebrao Thool,
     Aged about 25 years, 
     Residing of Yesamba, Tahsil and 
     District - Wardha.                                               ....       RESPONDENT
      


     ______________________________________________________________
   



         Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant.
      ______________________________________________________________





                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 25 APRIL, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. The Advocates representing the respondent-accused have

filed Pursis Stamp No.1475/2016 seeking discharge. Accepting the

reasons stated in the counsel note, Shri G.G. Modak, Shri

R.S. Subhedar and Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocates are discharged

from representing the respondent-accused.

2 apeal316.03

2. Heard Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for

the appellant-State of Maharashtra.

3. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging

the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused of

the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code.

4. The case of the prosecution is :

The prosecutrix-Ku. Namrata Prabhakarrao Sawadh (aged about

18 years at the time of incident) filed complaint with the police station

that the accused, being neighbour of the prosecutrix and having taken

land owned by father of the prosecutrix for cultivation on "batai", used

to visit the house and field of the prosecutrix. That on 28-12-1999 at

about 2-00 p.m. when the prosecutrix was working in her field, the

accused met her and offered to marry her. The prosecutrix sensed bad

intention of the accused and started going towards home, however, the

accused held her hand, threatened to kill her and forcibly committed

sexual intercourse. The accused continued to exploit her sexually

promising to marry her. On 22-02-2000, the accused was committing

sexual intercourse with her in the field and Shankar Thool and Nilesh

3 apeal316.03

Thool came there, however, the accused told them that he would be

marrying the prosecutrix and requested them not to disclose about the

incident to anybody. The prosecutrix carried pregnancy of six months,

she requested the accused to perform the marriage, however, the

accused avoided and then the prosecutrix informed her parents and

the report came to be lodged.

On the report, Crime No.180/2000 came to be registered,

investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed before the

Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wardha and as the offence is

triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court

of Sessions by the order dated 20-10-2001.

The charge came to be framed and was explained to the accused

in Marathi. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be

tried.

The Sessions Court conducted the trial and by the impugned

judgment concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the

accused committed sexual intercourse forcibly on the prosecutrix on

28-12-1999, without her consent and against her will, that the

prosecution failed to prove that the accused deceived the prosecutrix

by giving false assurance of marriage and committed sexual

intercourse with her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

4 apeal316.03

concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused

committed offence of criminal intimidation by threatening the

prosecutrix to kill her. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

acquitted the accused. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging

the judgment.

5.

With the assistance of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, I have examined the record.

According to the prosecutrix, the accused continued to

exploit the prosecutrix sexually from 28-12-1999 till 22-02-2000, that

she became pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 23-09-2001.

The prosecution has examined Mrs. Ratnaprabha Dattatraya Gujrathi-

Analyst (P.W.5) to prove the paternity of male child borne to

prosecutrix. The Analyst has given the opinion that there is possibility

that the accused may be biological father of the male child born to the

prosecutrix. The Analyst has not given firm opinion that the accused is

the father of the male child born to the accused.

6. The prosecution has not been able to establish beyond

doubt that the accused committed sexual intercourse with the

prosecutix forcibly, against her will and without her consent. The

5 apeal316.03

learned Additional Sessions Judge has doubted the story put forth by

the prosecution, recording that it is unnatural that the prosecutrix

would not disclose about the incident to her mother, if the accused had

committed sexual intercourse with her, forcibly. The conclusions of

the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be improper.

7.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has examined the

evidence of the prosecutrix and the so called eyewitnesses and has

dealt with the legal position and recorded that the prosecution has

failed to establish that the accused has cheated the prosecutrix by

committing sexual intercourse with her giving false assurance to marry

her. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to

point out any illegality or perversity in the conclusions of the learned

Sessions Judge.

8. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

pma