Bombay High Court
State Of Mah vs Keshav Namdeo Chavan on 21 July, 2016
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
cria436.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.436 OF 2005
The State of Maharashtra
(Through P.S. Majalgaon)
...APPELLANT
(Ori. Complainant)
VERSUS
Keshav Namdeo Chavan,
Age-30 years, R/o-Bhaduli Tanda,
Wadvani, Dist-Beed.
...RESPONDENT
(Ori. Accused)
...
Mr. K.D. Mundhe, A.P.P. for Appellant.
Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 21ST JULY, 2016
JUDGMENT :
1. State has filed this Appeal against
acquittal of the Respondent - original accused
(hereafter referred as "accused") for offence
punishable under Section 354 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief).
cria436.05
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is
as follows :-
A). On 31st December 2000, victim, woman of
22 years of age filed F.I.R. at police station
Majalgaon, Dist- Beed (I am not putting her name
on record. I will refer to her as "victim". Her
husband also deposed in the matter, I will refer
to him as "husband of victim").
B). The victim reported that she is resident
of Harishchandra Pimpri, Tq. Wadavni. With her
husband she had come to Rajegaon Shivar as labour
for cutting sugarcane. On 27th December 2000 at
about 2.00 p.m. she had gone for collecting
fire-wood at some distance from where sugarcane
crop was there. On one side she was eating carrot,
at which time the accused, who was part of the
group of labour for cutting sugarcane, suddenly
came there and held her hand. She got afraid and
cria436.05
got released her hand and ran. While running, she
tripped and fell and injury was caused to her
forehead. The accused came running behind her and
caught her hand and pulled her inside the
sugarcane crop and he put her down and kept his
foot on her neck. He claimed that he wanted to
sleep with her and so saying he pressed her chest.
She shouted loudly. Because of her shout, her
husband came running that side. At that time the
accused ran away. The couple got afraid and went
to the place of her parents at Chinchoti and told
the incident. They stayed there and later on had
come to the police station to file the F.I.R.
C). The offence was registered at Crime No.
206 of 2000 on 31st December, 2000 at 16.40 hours.
D). P.S.I. Baburao Rathod (PW-4) took over
the investigation. He went to the spot on 1st
January 2001 and did spot panchnama (Exhibit 20).
Statements of witnesses were recorded and after
cria436.05
investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed.
3. The plea was explained to the Appellant-
accused under Section 354 and 323 of I.P.C. The
accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is that he
was the only out-sider in the group of labourers
who were otherwise from Harishchandra Pimpri. As
his wife has a minor son, she was required to feed
the child frequently and thus could not do equal
labour work for cutting of sugarcane. The wages
however, were being distributed equally and thus
the complainant and her husband had grievance
against him and they wanted him to leave the group
and as he did not agree, false case has been
filed.
4. State brought on record evidence of four
witnesses. PW-1 is Panch Sukhdeo Rathod. PW-2 is
the victim and PW-3 is her husband. P.S.I. Baburao
Rathod, the investigating officer deposed as PW-4.
The trial Court, after considering the oral and
cria436.05
documentary evidence, recorded reasons and
acquitted the accused. Thus, this Appeal.
5. It has been argued by the learned A.P.P.
that there was consistent evidence of the victim
who was complainant, and her husband regarding the
incident. It is stated that the trial Court
wrongly acquitted the accused. The A.P.P. has
taken me through the oral evidence. It is
submitted by him that the trial Court wrongly gave
benefit to the accused stating that on the spot
there were no marks. According to him as the
F.I.R. has been filed late because the couple was
unable to decide whether they should file
complainant, the marks would not remain on the
spot. He wants the accused to be convicted.
6. Against this, the learned counsel for
Respondent-accused submitted that spot panchnama
does not show that there was dragging as claimed
by victim and even there was no damage to the
cria436.05
crop. Thus, according to him, the trial Court
rightly acquitted the accused. It is stated that
although the victim claimed that she had gone to
the doctor, no medical evidence was brought.
Although it was claimed that she suffered abrasion
and even injury to forehead, the medical
examination of the victim was not got done. There
is no other witness other than the couple although
the record shows that the husband was working with
other labours when he allegedly heard shouts. The
counsel submitted that the Appeal may be
dismissed.
7. I have gone through the evidence. PW-1 in
this matter is one Sukhdeo Rathod. In his
examination-in-chief, he claimed that the soil on
the spot was disturbed. His cross-examination
shows that sister-in-law of the complainant has
been married to this witness. Then the evidence of
PW-4 investigating officer Baburao Rathod shows
that this Panch Sukhdeo Rathod is from his
cria436.05
brother-hood. Thus evidence of the investigating
officer will also have to be carefully considered
looking to the link between the investigating
officer and the witnesses. The Panch PW-1 Sukhdeo
Rathod admitted that the sugarcane crop in the
field was not damaged. On the spot there were no
pieces of bangles lying. To the south, there was
sugarcane crop and on the north there was carrot
crop. The spot panchnama Exhibit 20 does not show
that any of crops were damaged. The learned
counsel for accused has rightly argued that even
if it was to be said that marks of dragging may
not survive on the spot due to passage of couple
of days, there was no material to show that even
the crop was damaged.
8. The evidence of the victim is that she
was working in the field of sugarcane at Rajegaon
for cutting sugarcane with others, and at that
time concerned had gone at a distance of about
50 - 100 feet away to collect fuel and she was
cria436.05
eating carrot when the accused came there and held
her hand. She claimed that she gave jerk and
started running and in the process, fell down when
her foot dashed against the stone. Her evidence is
that accused came and caught hold her hand and
dragged her in the sugarcane and put her down on
the ground and put his leg on her throat claiming
that he want to sleep with her. Her evidence is
that accused caught pressed her chest and she
shouted, attracting her husband. According to her
the accused then ran away.
9. The evidence of husband of the victim
PW-3 is that at the time of incident, his wife
went to collect fuel. According to him, "we were
taking meals". So he was not alone and others were
also there. He claims, at that time they heard
commotion and shout of his wife. Thereafter, he
claimed that, he rushed to the spot and saw the
accused running away from there. In his evidence
he claims that the details of the incident were
cria436.05
told to him by his wife. The cross-examination of
PW-3 husband shows that they were cutting
sugarcane at a distance about 100 feet from the
spot and five persons were cutting the sugarcane.
He admitted that even other persons there and
heard the shout. Thus although there were other
persons who also got attracted because of the
alleged shout, there is no other witness coming
forward or pointed out as witness of the incident
to corroborate this couple. Victim of sexual
assault can be believed even without
corroboration. But in the present matter where
there is admittedly delay in filing of the F.I.R.
from 26th December 2000 till 31st December 2000
and even the spot panchnama has been comfortably
done only on 1st January 2001 where nothing
incriminating is found and no medical evidence is
also available although in view of the incident
claimed there should have been medical evidence
available, circumstances are also not
corroborating. There is no corroboration becoming
cria436.05
available either from the circumstances or from
any other eye witness. The evidence of victim
tries to show that she ran, she fell down, she got
hurt to her forehead and the accused when pressed
her chest, she suffered injuries to her chest,
still no medical evidence regarding the injuries
has been brought. Although the victim claimed that
in the incident her clothes got spoiled because of
the mud, the husband did not agree to this. There
was no evidence brought of broken bangles or torn
clothes of the victim.
10. I have gone through the Judgment of the
trial Court. The trial Court considered that if
the evidence of the victim was that she had
shouted and the incident went for some time, no
other witness is available. According to the trial
Court, it is absurd that she was shouting
continuously while her husband and others were
standing at a distance of about 200 feet from the
spot and they did not rush to the spot. Trial
cria436.05
Court considered that there was no evidence of
broken bangles or damaged clothes available when
it is alleged that much force was used by the
accused for the commission of the incident. Trial
Court considered that although the incident
claimed that there was dragging of the victim
inside the sugarcane crop, there were no signs of
dragging or damage to the crop available. Trial
Court noticed that the investigating officer
pleaded ignorance regarding damage to the crop.
Trial Court noticed that although the victim
claimed that she had taken treatment at the place
of one doctor Anandgaonkar, no evidence in that
regard was brought on record. For such reasons,
the trial Court acquitted the accused.
11. Going through the material available, I
find that the reasons recorded by the trial Court
to acquit the accused, is possible view of the
evidence. I find that the victim is not
corroborated by any independent witness although
cria436.05
such witness could be available and there is no
circumstantial evidence also available to lend any
credence to the evidence of the victim. Looking to
the cross-examination of the witnesses and the
defence taken by the accused, it would not be
appropriate to interfere in this Judgment of
acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
12.
There is no substance in the Appeal. The
Appeal is dismissed.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.]
asb/JUL16
