Bombay High Court
State Of ... vs Chandrakant Ramji Kurhade on 23 March, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apeal519.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO .519 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O. Chandur Bajar,
District Amravati. ig .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
Chandrakant Ramji Kurhade,
Aged 25 years,
R/o Kajali, Tq. Chandur Bz., District
Amravati. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the appellant,
None for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 23
MARCH, 2016.
rd
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant-State of Maharashtra.
None appears for the respondent.
2. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging
2 apeal519.02
the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the respondent
of the charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 376
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecutrix Ku. Jyoti lodged complaint stating that
there was a love affair between the accused and the complainant since
one year prior to the filing of the complaint, that the accused indulged
in sexual intercourse with the complainant on several occasions
promising to marry with her and gave threats that if the complainant
disclosed about the relationship between the accused and the
complainant, the accused would kill her. The complainant stated that
she became pregnant and when she asked the accused to perform
marriage, he refused to marry. The complainant stated that she
delivered a male child.
4. On the complaint made by the complainant, crime was
registered against the accused for offence punishable under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was undertaken and
after the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed before
the learned Magistrate. The offence being triable by the Court of
Sessions, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court.
3 apeal519.02
The charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
was framed. The charge was read over and explained to the accused.
The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried.
The learned Assistant Sessions Judge conducted the trial
and by the impugned judgment concluded that the prosecution failed
to prove that the accused committed sexual intercourse with Ku. Jyoti
without her consent and acquitted the accused.
The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment
passed by the Sessions Court.
5. With the assistance of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, I have examined the record and has gone through the
impugned judgment. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has
exhaustively dealt with the evidence on record. The prosecutrix was
aged about 20 years at the time of making the complaint. The learned
Assistant Sessions Judge has assessed the evidence of the prosecutrix
and the admissions given by her to the effect that the accused was
frequently visiting the house of the prosecutrix, that the accused
committed intercourse with the prosecutrix four to five times in a
month and that the prosecutrix became pregnant and then delivered a
male child. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has also considered
4 apeal519.02
the admissions of the prosecutrix that she had not shouted for help
when the accused committed intercourse. The learned Assistant
Sessions Judge has considered the conduct of the prosecutrix that she
had not informed about the acts of accused to her mother. The
learned Assistant Sessions Judge has also considered the legal position
prevailing at the relevant time and has recorded that the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 375, fourth
description of the Indian Penal Code and the commission of offence
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings
recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. I see no reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE
pma
