Bhaskar Chhagan More vs The State Of Maharashtra
2016 Latest Caselaw 4100 Bom

                                                                     cria196.14
                                            1


                                            




                                                                          
          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.196 OF 2014




                                                 
     Bhaskar s/o Chhagan More,
     Age-25 years, Occu:Labour,
     R/o-Priyadarshini Nagar,
     Near Water Tank, Nagao Bari,




                                         
     Deopur, Dhule.
                                     ...APPELLANT 
                                     (Ori. Accused) 
                             
            VERSUS             
                            
     The State of Maharashtra,   
     Through Police Station Officer,
     Police Station Deopur,
     Dhule, Tq. & Dist-Dhule.   
      

                                     ...RESPONDENT
   



                          ...
        Mr. P.S. Paranjape Advocate for  Appellant.
        Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for Respondent. 
                          ...       





                   CORAM:   A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

        DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT  : 11TH JULY,2016.  





        DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 25TH JULY, 2016.
                                      

     JUDGMENT :

1. This Jail Appeal by the Appellant -

cria196.14

accused (hereafter referred as "accused") is

against his conviction and sentence under Section

363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

("IPC" in brief). For Sections 363 and 366 of IPC,

he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1000/-

and in default to suffer further simple

imprisonment for one month, on each count. For

Section 376 of IPC, he has been sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and

fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer further

simple imprisonment for two months. The sentences

have been directed to run concurrently. The

Judgment of conviction and sentence was passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 10th February

2014 in Sessions Case No.223 of 2012.

2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution

is as follows:-

A). On 8th September 2012 the mother of

prosecutrix filed F.I.R. No.114 of 2012 at Deopur

cria196.14

Police Station, Dhule. I will refer to the

prosecutrix (PW-2) as "victim" and the complainant

- mother of the victim (PW-1) as "complainant" to

keep their identity concealed.

                                                          
     B).              The   complainant,   mother   of   the   victim 

     reported                that       she           is           resident                 of 




                                        

Priyadarshaninagar at Nagaonbari, Deopur, Dhule.

Complaint gives details giving name of her husband

and other two daughters who are married. She

stated that she was living at the concerned place

along with her husband, victim and son. It was

claimed that they do labour work. The victim was

studying in 9th standard but was irregular in

school. She also used to go for labour work. On

7th September 2012, the complainant and her

husband had gone for work and son had gone to

school. Victim was alone at home. Complainant

returned in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. and

noticed that door of the house was only pushed.

When she looked inside, the victim was not there.

Inquiries were made in the neighbour-hood for the

cria196.14

victim but the neighbours did not know. Victim was

searched at the bus stand, railway station,

temples, village market and bye-lanes but she was

not found. On 8th September 2012 at about 1.40

p.m. phone call was received on Mobile of the

complainant. (She has given her Mobile number and

that of the coin box from where the phone call

came.) The phone call had come from accused

Bhaskar Chhagan More who was living in the

neighbour-hood. Accused addressed complainant as

aunt and gave his name and said that the victim

was with him. Complainant asked where they were

and he said that they were at Gurudwara.

Complainant asked to speak to the victim and then

the victim came on the line. Victim told

complainant that she should come to take her and

that the accused had brought the victim after

consuming liquor. Complainant asked the victim to

stay there and she is coming immediately. So

saying, the complainant along with her son, went

to Gurudwara but they were not found. Complainant

called back the number from where the phone call

cria196.14

had come and came to know that it was number of

some Ganesh Pan Center at J.B. road. Complainant

immediately went in that area and searched for the

victim but the accused and victim were not found.

Complainant then went to the house of mother of

accused and asked the mother and sisters of

accused for the mobile number of the accused and

where he was. Complainant told them that the

accused has kidnapped her daughter. Those persons

claimed that they had nothing to do with the

accused and did not speak properly to the

complainant. Thus, the complaint was filed

claiming that the accused has enticed her minor

daughter aged 16 years with the promise of

marriage and has kidnapped her.

C). The offence was registered and the

investigation was handed over to then A.S.I.

Bhagwan Salave (PW-4), who went and did spot

panchnama (Exhibit 16) from where the victim had

gone missing. Statements of witnesses were

recorded.

cria196.14

D). In the investigation, it transpired that

the accused had kidnapped and taken the victim and

kept her at the place of one Indubai Gaikwad at

Jamnagiri Bhilhati, Sakri Road, Dhule and that he

had committed rape on her on 8th September 2012

and 9th September 2012. The victim was recovered

after police searched the said house of Indubai

Gaikwad.

E). The further investigation was taken over

by A.P.I. Vijay Mistry (PW-3). He did the spot

panchnama vide Exhibit 21, of the house of Indubai

Gaikwad where the victim had been kept. The

clothes of the victim as well as the accused were

seized vide panchnamas (Exhibit 19 and 20).

F). When the victim was recovered on 10th

September 2012, she was got examined at the

Government Hospital and certificate (Exhibit 23)

was obtained. In the medical examination, the

doctor inter-alia found that her hymen was torn

cria196.14

and that victim was habituated to penetrative

sexual intercourse. The accused was arrested on

10th September 2012 and he was also got medically

examined (Exhibit 24). Bona fide certificate

(Exhibit 15) regarding age of the victim from her

school was collected. The blood samples of the

victim, accused, their clothes and other samples

like pubic hairs, nails, etc. were sent to C.A.

and the C.A. reports were obtained (Exhibit 25

to 27).

3. After investigation, charge-sheet came to

be filed and accused has been tried. Prosecution

brought on record evidence of four witnesses.

Prosecution filed application under Section 294 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." in

brief) vide Exhibit 5 in the trial Court

enlisting 11 documents and calling upon the

defence to admit or deny the genuineness of said

documents. In response, the counsel for accused

endorsed on the concerned documents themselves, no

objections of the accused to exhibit the

cria196.14

documents. Consequently the documents were

exhibited and even in oral evidence were referred.

They were not challenged or denied in cross-

examination regarding their genuineness.

4. In the trial Court, defence taken by the

accused is that of denial. The trial Court

considered the evidence brought on record and

after hearing both sides, for reasons recorded in

the Judgment convicted and sentenced the accused

as mentioned above.

5. Although the accused admitted virtually

all the documents in the trial Court and did not

dispute their genuineness, his counsel, at the

time of Appeal, has referred to Section 294 of

Cr.P.C. and relying on sub-Section (2) of Section

294 of Cr.P.C., claimed that the list of documents

has to be in such form as may be prescribed by the

State Government. The learned counsel without

demonstrating that the State Government has

prescribed any form for listing the documents

cria196.14

which are to be tendered for admission or denial

under Section 294(1) of the Cr.P.C., relied on

Chapter VI Para 32 of the Criminal Manual to argue

that the format prescribed therein was not

followed in application Exhibit 5 which was filed

before the trial Court. According to him, the

admission or denial of the documents was also

required to be endorsed on the said list. The

counsel has relied on the Division Bench Judgment

of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra

vs. Ajay Dayaram Gopnarayan, reported in 2014(2)

Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 40. Considering the observations

in the concerned Judgment, at the time of

arguments, one of the option appeared to remand

the matter. If the prosecution and trial Court

were not careful on technicalities, even the

accused had made the prosecution believe that he

was not objecting to the genuineness and

correctness of the documents which his own counsel

was admitting. However, the matter has been

further argued by the counsel for Appellant-

accused and A.P.P. in order to see if there was

cria196.14

even otherwise sufficient and reliable evidence in

the matter. The accused has been in custody

since 10th September 2012 when he was arrested

and as such it would be necessary to

see if for technical reasons, the matter should

be remanded or it may be considered if even

otherwise sufficient evidence is available to

dispose the Appeal on merits, one way or the

other.

6. The learned counsel for the Appellant -

accused submitted that the evidence of the victim

rather shows that if the accused had taken her

away, she did not resist or make any efforts to

escape or shout or inform anybody. According to

him, even when the victim had opportunity to run

away, she did not run away. Thus, according to the

counsel, her evidence is not reliable. It is

argued by him that the bona fide certificate of

age admitted in the trial Court, is required to be

ignored as the document was not duly proved. It is

stated that the prosecution did not prove that the

cria196.14

victim was under 16 years of age at the relevant

time. It has been argued that although the victim

claimed that on 8th and 9th September 2012

forcible intercourse was committed on her 2-4

times, her medical certificate showed that she was

habituated to penetrative intercourse. The counsel

submitted that the oral evidence of the victim and

her mother deserves to be discarded and accused

should be acquitted. The complainant also did not

file report to police station on 7th September

2012 itself when the victim is said to have gone

missing. According to the counsel, there is

evidence to show that the victim was beaten by her

father under influence of liquor on 7th September

2012 and thus according to him, the victim ran

away and false case is filed against the accused.

7. Per contra, learned A.P.P. submitted that

the evidence of the victim sufficiently shows as

to how she was beaten and forced to sit in auto

rickshaw and forcibly taken from place to place.

The victim did try to send message to her mother

cria196.14

through the auto rickshaw driver but the accused

did not let her give the mobile number. The

learned A.P.P. submitted that the victim in her

oral evidence, stated regarding her date of birth

and even tendered her bona fide certificate from

the school. All this evidence of the victim

regarding her age was not challenged in the cross-

examination. According to the A.P.P., even if the

document regarding age is to be ignored, when the

evidence of the victim, who was taking education

and gave specific date of her birth, was not

challenged there is no reason to not accept that

the victim was minor at the time of incident.

According to the A.P.P. looking to the evidence of

complainant PW-1 and the victim PW-2 and their

cross-examination, the incident is hardly denied.

Rather cross-examination brought on record further

details and showed that the witnesses are

reliable.

8. The evidence of the complainant PW-1 and

the victim PW-2 shows that they were residing at

cria196.14

Nagaonbari. In the house, there was also husband

of the complainant and the younger son residing

with these two witnesses. Evidence of these

witnesses shows that the victim was at the

concerned time studying in 9th standard in high

school. On the day of incident, the parents had

gone for work and the younger brother of the

victim was at school and victim was alone at home.

It seems that she was not regular in school and

also used to do labour work. The evidence of

complainant shows that her husband was addicted to

liquor and was not going to work regularly. On the

day of incident, however, he had gone for work.

The complainant is from Mahar community and the

accused appears to be Adiwasi. The cross-

examination of these witnesses shows that they

were residing in row-houses and in one of the

house the accused along with his mother and

sisters was residing. The accused was known to the

complainant and the victim.

9. Cross-examination of the complainant has

cria196.14

brought on record that one or two days prior to

the incident, the accused had come to the house of

complainant for match box. He had come under

influence of liquor. The complainant felt angry

because of such behaviour of the accused. The

cross-examination shows that one year prior to the

incident, the accused had also quarreled with them

because the complainant had pointed out the house

of the accused to some body. The cross-examination

brought on record that six months before incident

also in the night the accused had gone to the

house of the complainant asking for water when he

was under influence of liquor. The cross examiner

further brought on record that the accused used to

sing songs after seeing the victim and her

sisters. Of course the complainant admitted that

before the incident she had not complained to the

police against the accused for such behaviour, but

the complainant added that she had informed the

mother and sister of the accused about his

behaviour. The evidence of victim also shows that

she was knowing Kalpana and Soni, the sisters of

cria196.14

the accused and thus she was knowing the accused

also. She deposed that on 6th September 2012 in

the afternoon the accused had come to their house

asking for match box and at that time he was under

influence of heavy dose of liquor. She says that

she gave him the match box. According to her, she

disclosed this incident to her parents and also

told it to the mother of the accused. She deposed

that she told the mother of the accused that she

should not send the accused to their house,

however if she wants something she can take. The

mother of accused assured that the accused would

not come to their house. In the cross-examination

regarding the incident of 6th September 2012, the

cross-examiner for accused brought on record

details that the incident took place at 12.00 noon

when the accused went asking for match box. Victim

stated that she was alone at house. She denied

that she and accused had any chitchat.

10. As regards the incident of 7th September

2012, the complainant has deposed that she and her

cria196.14

husband went out to work and her son had gone to

school and victim was alone. According to her, she

returned at about 5.00 p.m. and did not find the

victim at home. Her evidence shows that she made

inquiries in the neighbour-hood and searched for

the victim but the victim was not found. The

cross-examination of complainant shows that at the

concerned time she was serving at Chaitanya

Hospital, Deopur. It appears that she was working

as nurse. At one point she accepted in the cross-

examination that she did not search for the victim

at the place of her relatives. However, she added

that her husband had gone to their relative at

Nagaon. She accepted that on 7th September 2012

they did not file complaint to the police.

11. The evidence of victim shows that on 7th

September 2012 her father came back home after

consuming liquor. He again wanted to go to consume

liquor but she opposed him. Her evidence is that

thereafter her father started beating her. It

appears that some friend of the father was there

cria196.14

who tried to control the father. Victim deposed

that after she was thus beaten, she went to

backside lane of their house to make phone call to

her mother from coin box installed at a grocery

shop. Her evidence shows that she could not get

connected and started proceeding towards her

house. Her evidence shows that at such time the

accused came from behind and caught hold of her

hand. She deposed that she slapped the accused and

in retaliation accused gave her 2-3 slaps and

started questioning her that when he loves her why

is she getting beaten up from him. Victim deposed

that accused told her that he wanted to perform

marriage with her and if she was also ready. Her

evidence is that then she told the accused that he

should say what he wants, to her parents. Accused

claimed to be in love with her and not with her

parents. The evidence is that the victim asked the

accused to release her hand but he claimed that if

he was to release her hand he would not have held

it. Victim deposed that the accused then

threatened her that he would beat her father and

cria196.14

also kidnap her brother. So saying, the victim

deposed that, the accused took her towards

Chouphuli by one rickshaw. Her evidence is that he

took her to the place of one so-called aunt. It

seems that after stopping the rickshaw near the

house of the said aunt, accused went inside, at

which time the victim started talking to the

rickshaw driver to give him phone number of her

parents and the accused in the meanwhile came back

and took her inside the house threatening that she

should not disclose to anybody and should not

shout else he would kidnap her brother. Victim

deposed that the said aunt asked about her and the

accused told that he had brought her, where-after

the said aunt drove away the accused and the

victim from her house. Victim has then deposed

that they again boarded the said rickshaw and then

the accused took her to the place of his maternal

sister. Her evidence is that when they were on the

way, the victim told the accused that he may go to

his maternal sister but drop her there itself. Her

evidence is that the accused then started abusing

cria196.14

her and she started weeping. When the rickshaw

driver started seeing towards them, the accused

appears to have told the rickshaw driver to see in

front and drive. The victim further deposed that

accused stopped the rickshaw near Mahadeo Temple

where they both got down and the accused took her

to the house of his sister. Victim has deposed

that the sister of accused asked him about the

victim and the accused told his sister not to ask

anything and he would disclose later on. Victim

deposed that at such time the accused had already

consumed liquor. When the sister of accused tried

to talk with victim, the accused did not allow her

to speak with the victim. The evidence shows that

the accused stayed at the house of such sister of

his along with victim. According to the victim in

that night of 7th September 2012, the accused

slept in the back side room while she slept with

the sister of the accused.

12. Regarding this evidence of victim of

incident dated 7th September 2012, the cross-

cria196.14

examiner put her various questions. She was asked

in cross-examination and stated that her father

was habituated to liquor. She stated that her

father never quarreled with her and her mother but

on 7th September 2012 the father did quarrel with

her and when she asked him not to go out for

drinking liquor, he did beat her. The cross-

examination shows that she went to make phone call

as she wanted to inform her mother about the

father having consumed liquor. In the cross-

examination it is got confirmed that firstly

victim slapped the accused and then he slapped her

and that such incident took place at about 1.00 -

1.30 p.m. She affirmed that when the accused

caught her hand, she got annoyed. She accepted

that she did not shout. She stated that she did

not shout as the accused had given threats to her.

She denied that she voluntarily boarded the

rickshaw. She claimed that accused made her to

board the rickshaw. Her cross-examination shows

that she was taken to Malhar Nagar where they

reached in 15 - 20 minutes at the place of so-

cria196.14

called aunt. The cross-examination makes it clear

that when she was giving phone number of her

mother to the rickshaw driver, the accused came

there and told her that she should not give phone

number to anybody and she should not shout.

13. Thus, the examination-in-chief of the

victim read with the cross-examination with regard

to incident dated 7th September 2012 shows that

she is not shattered with regard to her evidence

that the accused slapped the victim and forcibly

took her in auto rickshaw giving her various

threats and although she tried to give phone

number to the rickshaw driver, she was not

successful. There is no denial to the part of her

evidence that when the accused took the victim to

the said sister, the said sister drove them away

and thereafter the accused took her to the place

of his maternal sister and inspite of she asking

to be dropped on the way, the accused did not

listen and abused her and when she was crying,

asked the rickshaw driver to proceed seeing in

cria196.14

front only and took her to the place of his

maternal sister. The evidence shows how accused

was drunk and aggressive and beat victim and

forcibly took her.

14. The victim has then deposed that on 8th

September 2012 at about 10.00 a.m. the mother and

sister of accused came there at the place of the

maternal sister of accused. According to victim

they asked the victim that she was complaining

about the accused on 6th September 2012, then how

she came with the accused. Victim has deposed that

she responded by telling the mother and sister

that the accused had brought her forcibly holding

her hand. It appears that the mother and sister of

the accused told the maternal sister of accused

that they had come to take victim and accused and

that they would be going to Nagaon-bari. Her

evidence is that after this they come out of the

house of said maternal sister. Evidence of victim

shows that mid-way however, the mother and sister

of accused went away towards Nagaon-bari leaving

cria196.14

them. Thereafter the accused took her by Jamnagiri

road on foot to the house of one Nana Gaikwad. The

cross-examination of the victim brought further

details on record that mother of the accused when

she had come told the victim to reside there as

her parents do not know. She deposed that she did

not accept such suggestion. She claimed that she

asked the mother of accused to take her to her

parents. The cross-examination shows that they had

come to Khol Galli and there after the mother and

sister left them there and went away. Her evidence

shows that from there they walked for 30 minutes

towards Jamnagiri. The cross-examination shows

that the accused told the victim at that time that

he was taking her to the place of his aunt. The

examination-in-chief of victim shows that the

mother of said Nana Gaikwad asked accused about

the victim and he claimed that they are having

love affair. According to the victim the mother of

said Nana Gaikwad then let them stay there. They

were given a room. The victim deposed that she and

accused had slept there and at about 10.00 p.m.

cria196.14

the accused committed sexual intercourse with her

twice.

15. The above evidence of the victim shows

that on 8th September 2012 the accused had shifted

the victim from the place of his maternal sister

and taken her to Jamnagiri to the place of one

Nana Gaikwad. Although the evidence of the victim

does not refer to the accused making phone call to

the complainant on this date, there is evidence of

the complainant that at about 1.40 p.m. of 8th

September 2012 she received phone call from the

accused claiming that the victim was with him and

he told the mother that they were at Gurudwara.

The complainant claimed that she even talked with

the victim who claimed that accused had brought

her under the influence of liquor and she asked

the complainant to take her. The evidence of

complainant is that she asked the victim to stop

there at the Gurudwara and she went there along

with her son but they were not found. The evidence

of complainant corroborates the F.I.R. that

cria196.14

thereafter she called back the number from which

she had received the phone call and came to know

that it was some Pan Center at J.B. Road.

Complainant deposed that she went there and

searched the victim and accused but they were not

found and questioned the mother and sister of the

accused, but could not succeed and ultimately

filed F.I.R. Exhibit 13. The complainant has

proved the F.I.R. Exhibit 13. The evidence of

victim is no doubt silent about any such phone

call made by the accused and she talking with her

mother on 8th September 2012. However, there is no

reason to doubt the complainant that she did

receive such phone call as in the same evening she

did file the F.I.R. Exhibit 13 giving specific

phone numbers and details and claiming that the

accused has enticed her minor daughter on the plea

of marriage and taken her away and thus kidnapped

her.

16. The evidence of victim shows that on 9th

September 2012, at the place of Nana Gaikwad, the

cria196.14

said aunt of accused went to field and the accused

had also gone for work and both of them came back

in the evening. The victim deposed that the

accused told her that he is not getting work and

after getting work he would perform marriage. The

said aunt also appears to have told the victim to

stay there. The evidence of victim further shows

that in the night of 9th September 2012 also the

accused twice committed sexual intercourse with

her. In the cross-examination of the victim in

para 5 it was brought on record that the statement

of victim was recorded on 10th September 2012 as

well as on 12th September 2012. The cross-examiner

subsequently brought on record that in her

statement dated 10th September 2012 why she had

stated that no intercourse was committed on her in

the night of 8th September 2012 and that it was

committed only two times in the night of 9th

September 2012. The victim replied that when her

statement was first recorded on 10th September

2012, she got frightened and so did not say that

accused committed sexual intercourse with her on

cria196.14

8th September 2012 and stated that it was

committed twice only in the night of 9th September

2012. Thus omission or contradiction is only to

the effect that in her statement to police on 10th

September 2012 she had stated that no intercourse

was committed in the night of 8th September 2012

and that she had stated that it was committed only

in the night of 9th September 2012. She corrected

herself in the statement dated 12th September

2012. The fact remains that soon after this victim

was searched out by the police she had given

statements giving the details as to how she was

kidnapped, threatened, beaten, forcibly taken and

how sexual intercourse was committed with her.

Even if benefit was to be given for 8th September

2012, the evidence still stands that in the night

of 9th September 2012 forcible intercourse was

committed.

17. The evidence of victim then discloses

that on 10th September 2012 she started weeping

remembering her mother and asked the said aunt to

cria196.14

take her to her mother. She was then asked to take

bath and that she would be then taken. The accused

had already left the house according to the

victim. She deposed that she took bath and was

preparing Chapatis at which time the police

reached there and took her to police station where

her mother was waiting. The cross-examiner

confirmed that the police had reached at 10.00 -

11.00 a.m. and in 10 - 20 minutes she was taken to

the police station.

18. If the evidence of the victim in

examination-in-chief as well as in cross-

examination is perused, as discussed above,

graphic details of the incident came on record.

The cross-examiner also asked so many details and

the victim has correctly stated about the same.

After taking details also, the cross-examiner has

not brought any contradictions or omissions on

record other than her statement that on 10th

September 2012 in her police statement she stated

that sexual intercourse was not committed on 8th

cria196.14

September 2012 but that it was committed on 9th

September 2012. Even for this, the victim rather

gives explanation that she had got frightened and

so made such statement. At the fag end of the

cross-examination, the cross-examiner suggested to

her that because her father beat, she went away to

her relatives in anger and that accused was not

with her and that he did not commit sexual

intercourse with her. Victim denied such

suggestions. There is hardly or no reason why the

victim should depose against the accused. The

defence that on earlier occasions the victim had

expressed her displeasure of the accused coming to

her place after having consumed liquor or that

some months earlier there was some quarrel, would

be no reason for the victim to falsely implicate

the accused with such serious charge of accused

kidnapping her and forcibly committing rape. The

victim was young girl. Her two sisters were

already married. It is unthinkable that the

complainant would take risk of the marriage

prospects of her daughter by falsely making such

cria196.14

allegations.

19. The victim in her examination-in-chief

deposed that her date of birth is 17th October

1996. In Para 4 of her evidence she further

deposed that she has filed her bona fide

certificate. She tendered the document in evidence

and it was marked Exhibit 15. The accused also at

that time, appears to have admitted the document

and no objection on this count was recorded on the

document. This evidence of the victim giving

specific date of her birth is not denied in the

cross-examination. She claimed in her examination-

in-chief that at the time of incident she was

under 16 years of age. Even this has not been

denied. The victim was taking education and had

brought the bona fide certificate Exhibit 15 from

her school record and tendered it in her evidence.

The document was marked Exhibit and not objected

to by the accused. Looking to the fact that the

oral evidence of the victim regarding specific

date of her birth and her claim that she was

cria196.14

under 16 years of age is not at all questioned in

the cross-examination, there is no reason to

discard such oral evidence of the victim. It

cannot be said to be baseless. The incident took

place on 7th September 2012. Looking to the date

of birth, she was under 16 years of age is clear

from the evidence brought by the prosecution.

20.

Looking to the fact that the victim was

minor, even if on 9th September 2012 when the

accused and the said aunt were away and the victim

did not run away, that would not make any

difference. It appears that the accused did

succeed in making the victim believe that he would

marry her. The evidence of victim read as a whole,

shows that the victim, minor girl was forcibly

taken away and beaten and threatened by the

accused and raped and after some time it appears

that she was made to believe that the accused

would be marrying with her. The consent of the

minor would be irrelevant. Even otherwise there is

ample evidence that the accused beat and forcibly

cria196.14

took away the victim and forcibly committed sexual

intercourse on her.

21. In the evidence of PW-4 A.S.I. Bhagwan,

he proved spot panchnama Exhibit 16 which was of

the house of the victim. PW-3 A.P.I. Vijay Mistry

proved spot panchnama Exhibit 21 which was the

house of Indubai Gaikwad where the victim appears

to have resided for two days. These police

witnesses were not questioned regarding

genuineness of such panchnamas drawn by them. The

other evidence is regarding seizure of clothes of

the victim, the accused and sending them to the

C.A. Looking to the time lag, and the evidence

showing that the victim had taken bath, nothing

appears to have been found in the C.A. reports

which could be said to be incriminating. However,

ignoring these documents, there is acceptable

evidence of the victim and her mother.

22. I have gone through the Judgment of the

trial Court. Trial Court found that the evidence

cria196.14

of the victim and complainant was acceptable and

convicted and sentenced the accused. For reasons

discussed above, I do not find any reason to

interfere with the Judgment of conviction and

sentence recorded by the trial Court. The evidence

on record as discussed is appealing. There is no

substance in the Appeal.

23.

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/JUL16