Bombay High Court
Dattatraya Ramchandra Sutar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 August, 2017
Bench: A.M. Badar
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.820 OF 2010
DATTATRAYA RAMCHANDRA SUTAR )
(PAWAR) )...APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Ms.Manjiri Parasnic i/b. Mr.P.D.Pise, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms.P.N.Dabholkar, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 23rd AUGUST 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 By this appeal, the appellant / convicted accused is
challenging the judgment and order dated 16th September 2010
passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Sangli,
in Special Case No.6 of 2010 thereby convicting him of offences
punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
avk 1/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for the sake of brevity
S.C.S.T. Act). For the offence punishable under Section 377 of the
IPC, the appellant / accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of 3 years apart from directing him to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(iii) of the S.C.S.T.Act, the appellant / accused is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months, in
addition to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default directing
him to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
2 Brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant /
accused projected from police report are thus :
(a) Informant PW2 Nandkumar Manik Pol is resident of village
Malegaon in Miraj Taluka of Sangli District. He used to do work of
centering in order to earn his livelihood, and therefore, he used to
be away from his home for a period of about fifteen days at a
stretch. His family was comprising of his wife PW3 Sunita Pol and
three children - two daughters and a son aged about 3½ years.
avk 2/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
(b) The appellant / accused is stated to be resident of the same
village and his house was situated at a distance of about 30 to 40
feet from the house of informant PW2 Nandkumar Pol.
(c) According to the prosecution case, informant PW2
Nandkumar Pol belongs to Dhor caste which is recognized as
schedule caste whereas the appellant / accused is belonging to
Maratha caste. The prosecution alleged that at or about 26 th
January 2010, in the afternoon, the appellant / accused called the
minor son aged about 3½ years of informant PW2 Nandkumar Pol
and PW3 Sunita Pol to his house on the pretext of giving him
jalebi. After giving him jalebi for eating, the appellant / accused
made the minor son of PW2 Nandkumar Pol and PW3 Sunita Pol
fellatio.
(d) According to the prosecution case, minor son of PW2
Nandkumar Pol and PW3 Sunita Pol disclosed this incident to his
mother PW3 Sunita Pol on 1st February 2010. At that time, PW2
Nandkumar Pol was at Gadhinglaj town of Kolhapur District for
avk 3/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
doing centering work. After getting this telephonic call, he
immediately returned back to his house on the said night itself. In
the morning hours, PW2 Nandkumar Pol verified this fact from his
minor son, who is alleged victim of the crime in question. His minor
son again reiterated the same fact and told him that the appellant /
accused put his penis in the mouth and asked him to suck the same.
(e) The prosecution further alleged that PW3 Sunita Pol had even
called her cousin brother PW4 Duryodhan Kadam and the victim
minor child disclosed the incident which took place to PW4
Duryodhan Kadam.
(f) Accompanied by his minor son, PW2 Nandkumar Pol so also
PW3 Sunita Pol and her cousin PW4 Duryodhan Kadam then went to
the house of the appellant / accused on 2 nd February 2010. The
minor son of PW2 Nandkumar Pol pointed out the appellant /
accused as perpetrator of the crime. Upon being questioned by his
parents, the appellant / accused ran away from rear door of his
house.
avk 4/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
(g) Informant PW2 Nandkumar Pol then went to Police Station
Miraj and lodged report Exhibit 16 on 2nd February 2010 itself
which resulted in registration of Crime No.14 of 2010 against the
appellant /accused for offences punishable under Section 377 of
the IPC and under Section 3(1)(12) of the S.C.S.T.Act, 1989. The
victim of the crime was then sent to the government hospital for
medical examination. The appellant / accused came to be
arrested on 3rd February 2010. Statement of witnesses came to be
recorded during the course of investigation conducted by PW5
Somanath Gharge, Deputy Superintendent of Police. On
completion of routine investigation, the appellant / accused came
to be charge-sheeted.
(h) The charge for offences punishable under Section 377 of the
IPC and under Section 3(1)(iii) of the S.C.S.T.Act, came to be
framed and explained to the appellant / accused. He pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
avk 5/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
(i) In order to bring home the guilt to the appellant / accused,
the prosecution has examined in all five witnesses. PW1
Parashram Shinde is a panch witness to the spot panchnama
Exhibit 14 recorded on 3rd February 2010. Father of the victim
minor boy namely, Nandkumar Pol is examined as PW2. PW3
Sunita Pol is mother of the minor boy where as PW4 Duryodhan
Kadam is cousin of PW3 Sunita Pol. Somnath Gharge, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who investigated the crime in question is
examined as PW5. PW6 Sambhaji Patil, P.S.I., Miraj Police Station,
had recorded the FIR Exhibit 16 and registered the offence.
(j) Defence of the appellant / accused is to the effect that the
prosecuting party has obtained electric supply to their house from
the house of the appellant / accused and they were in arrears of
the charges of electricity consumption. The appellant /accused
was not on good terms with his daughter-in-law. Conniving with
the daughter-in-law of the appellant / accused, PW3 Sunita Pol
has falsely implicated him in the crime in question.
avk 6/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
(k) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and
order, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, was pleased
to convict the appellant / accused and to sentence him as
indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.
3 The appellant / accused was released on bail during
pendency of the appeal. It is seen that by order dated 18 th March
2016 (Coram : Smt.S..S.Jadhav, J.) directed issuance of non-
bailable warrant and that is how the appellant / accused came to
be arrested and is undergoing the jail sentence. The appeal is,
therefore, taken up for hearing as the appellant / accused has
undergone substantial part of the short sentence imposed upon
him by the learned trial court.
4 I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the
appellant / accused. She argued that the trial is vitiated as the
investigation of the crime in question is not conducted by the
Officer authorized to carry out the investigation as per Rule 7 of
the S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. She further
avk 7/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
argued that the child witness is not examined by the prosecution
and other evidence adduced by the prosecution is hearsay. In
submission of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant /
accused, other persons were present at the house of the
appellant / accused at the time of the incident as seen from the
evidence of PW3 Sunita Pol and therefore, it cannot be said that
the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant / accused
beyond all reasonable doubts. As against this, the learned APP
supported the impugned judgment and order by contending that it
is not at all necessary to examine the victim of the sexual offence
and by evidence of his parents and a relative, the prosecution has
proved guilt of the appellant / accused beyond all reasonable
doubts. The learned APP relied on evidence of PW2 Nandkumar
Pol, PW3 Sunita Pol and PW4 Duryodhan Kadam to submit that
evidence of these witnesses is admissible in view of provisions of
Sections 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act. According to the learned
APP, conduct of the appellant /accused in fleeing away from the
spot upon being questioned by the parents of the victim,
corroborates the prosecution case against him.
avk 8/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
5 I have considered the rival submissions and also
perused the record and proceedings including depositions of
witnesses.
6 According to the prosecution case, it was on 26 th
January 2010 at his house, that the appellant / accused had
performed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with 3½
years old son of PW2 Nandkumar Pol and PW3 Sunita Pol.
Though no documentary evidence is placed on record to infer age
of the victim boy, it is in evidence of his father PW2 Nandkumar
Pol, that his son at the time of the incident, was about 3½ years
old. PW3 Sunita Pol has stated that her son, who is victim of the
crime in question, was aged about 3 years, at the time of the
incident. On behalf of the defence, age of the alleged victim of
the crime in question is not disputed. With this, let us examine
whether evidence of the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to
conclude that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable
doubts that the appellant / accused had committed the offence
punishable under Section 377 of the IPC by putting his penis in
avk 9/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
the mouth of the victim boy and asking him to suck the same on
26th January 2010, at his own house.
7 Evidence of the prosecution is based on narrations of
the alleged victim of the crime in question, firstly made to his own
mother PW3 Sunita Pol, thereafter to his cousin maternal uncle -
PW4 Duryodhan Kadam and lastly to his father PW2 Nandkumar
Pol. It is in the evidence of PW3 Sunita Pol that on 1 st February
2010, while playing, her minor son, who is alleged victim of the
crime in question, has told her that the appellant / accused
opened his pant and asked him to suck penis of the appellant /
accused on 26th January 2010, after calling him on the pretext of
giving jalebi to him. PW3 Sunita Pol in her evidence stated that
then she called her cousin PW4 Duryodhan Kadam and informed
this fact to PW4 Duryodhan Kadam. Then she telephonically
informed this fact to her husband and on the next date, she along
with her husband PW2 Nandkumar Pol and PW4 Duryodhan
Kadam taking her minor son went to the house of the
appellant / accused. PW3 Sunita Pol testified that then her minor
avk 10/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
son who is alleged victim of the crime in question, had shown the
appellant / accused. Then the appellant / accused went inside his
house and left the spot from back door of his house.
8 During cross-examination, PW3 Sunita Pol admitted
the fact that her house has electric supply from the house of the
appellant / accused and she used to pay charges for consumption
of electricity to the appellant / accused. This witness denied that
electric charges were due on her and the appellant / accused was
demanding the same from her. She further denied that it was at
the instance of the daughter-in-law of the appellant / accused, she
has lodge false report against the appellant / accused. At this
stage, it is worthwhile to notice that PW3 Sunita Pol has candidly
accepted the fact that on 26th January 2010, sons of the
appellant / accused, so also his daughter-in-law were present at
his house. PW3 Sunita Pol has also admitted that the appellant /
accused used to earn his livelihood by working in the factory
situated at MIDC, Miraj.
avk 11/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
9 In tune with his FIR Exhibit 16, PW2 Nandkumar Pol
has disclosed that on 1st February 2010 when he was at
Gadhinglaj, at about 9.00 p.m. his wife PW3 Sunita Pol had
telephonically informed him about the incident and therefore, he
returned back to his house at Malegaon at about 3.00 a.m. As per
version of PW2 Nandkumar Pol, on 2nd February 2010, in the
morning hours, he made enquiry from his minor son and upon
that, his minor son told him that the neighbouring uncle gave
jalebi to him and thereafter removed his pant and put his penis in
the mouth. PW2 Nandkumar Pol further deposed that his minor
son told him that the neighbouring uncle compelled him to suck
the penis. As per version of PW2 Nandkumar Pol, then, his minor
son took him to the house of the appellant / accused and by
touching the appellant / accused told him that the appellant /
accused is the same neighbouring uncle. PW2 Nandkumar Pol
then claimed to have went to the Police Station on 2 nd February
2010 itself to lodge the report Exhibit 16. Cross-examination of
this witness reveals that house of the appellant / accused is also
occupied by two sons, daughter-in-law and grandson of the
avk 12/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
appellant / accused. PW2 Nandkumar Pol has also accepted the
fact that electric supply to his house is from the house of the
appellant / accused but denied that there were huge arrears of
electricity bill payable by him and therefore, his wife colluded
with the daughter-in-law of the appellant / accused to implicate
the appellant / accused in a false case. It is worthwhile to note
that PW2 Nandkumar Pol has categorically denied that his minor
son who is victim of the crime in question, was unable to talk
properly and clearly, at the relevant time.
10 Then comes the evidence of PW4 Duryodhan Kadam -
cousin of the PW3 Sunita Pol and maternal uncle of the alleged
victim of the crime in question. As per version of this witness, it
was at about 8.30 p.m. of 1 st February 2010, PW3 Sunita Pol
called him and then the alleged victim of the crime in question
told him that the appellant / accused called him on the pretext of
giving jalebi. PW4 Duryodhan Kadam further narrated that minor
victim of the crime in question, then disclosed to him that the
appellant / accused removed his own pant and inserted his penis
avk 13/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
in the mouth of the alleged victim of the crime and asked him to
suck it. PW4 Duryodhan Kadam further deposed that on the next
date, along with PW2 Nandkumar Pol and PW3 Sunita Pol, he went
to the house of the appellant / accused and made enquiry. The
appellant / accused then left through the back door. Contrary to
the version of PW2 Nandkumar Pol, this witness PW4 Duryodhan
Kadam in his cross-examination stated that the minor victim of the
crime in question was not in a position to talk properly and he used
to speak haltingly. PW4 Duryodhan Kadam further stated that
minor victim was unable to understand time.
11 This is what the major chunk of the evidence against
the appellant / accused. Now let us examine whether this evidence
can be made use of to infer guilt of the appellant / accused for the
offence punishable under Section 377 of the IPC. With the aid of
evidence of parents and cousin maternal uncle of the alleged minor
victim of the crime in question, one can safely conclude that the
minor son of PW2 Nandkumar Pol and PW3 Sunita Pol was aged
about 3 years at the time of the alleged incident. As seen from
avk 14/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
evidence of PW2 Nandkumar Pol, minor victim of the crime in
question was in a position to talk properly as well as clearly at the
time of the incident. Not only that, the evidence of PW2
Nandkumar Pol indicates that his son had developed intellectual
capacity to take his parents to the house of the appellant / accused
and to indict the appellant / accused as a perpetrator of the crime
by touching him and by telling his parents that it is the appellant /
accused who is the same neighbouring uncle who had indulged in
commission of crime against him. As against this, PW4 Duryodhan
Kadam, cousin maternal uncle of the minor victim of the crime in
question, has come up with the version that the minor victim of the
crime in question was unable to talk properly and he was unable to
talk coherently. Evidence of PW4 Duryodhan Kadam indicates that
the minor son of PW2 Nandkumar Pol and PW3 Sunita Pol, who is
alleged victim of the crime in question, at the relevant time, was
not in a position to have sense of time. Thus, on one hand, PW2
Nandkumar Pol is stating that his child is intelligent enough to
understand the events taking place and had attained sufficient
maturity to disclose what had happened with him and to take his
avk 15/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
father to show the perpetrator of the crime, while on the other
hand, the cousin maternal uncle of the said child has come up with
a stand that victim child, at the relevant time, had not attained the
capacity to talk properly and coherently. He had not developed the
sense of time at the relevant time. Evidence of the prosecution, as
such, is inconsistent and this court is unable to determine whether
PW2 Nandkumar Pol is a witness of truth or PW4 Duryodhan
Kadam is trustworthy, so far as capacity of understanding and
general intelligence of the alleged minor victim of the crime in
question is concerned. At the same time, PW2 Nandkumar Pol,
PW3 Sunita Pol and PW4 Duryodhan Kadam, who all are interested
witnesses, are consistent in stating that the minor victim of the
crime in question has consistently disclosed to all of them the
incident of calling him by the appellant / accused on the pretext of
giving jalebi to him to eat and then taking advantage of this fact,
committed carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature
by putting penis in the mouth of the minor victim boy and asking
him to suck it.
avk 16/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
12 As prescribed by Section 118 of the Evidence Act, all
persons are competent to testify unless the court considers that by
reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease or infirmity,
whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind, they
are incapable of understanding the questions put to them and of
giving rational answers. The only incompetency that the Evidence
Act recognizes is incompetency from immature or defective
intellect, which may arise from infancy as one of the causes.
However, the relevant consideration is not age, but capacity to
understand the questions put and ability to give rational answers
to those questions. As such, a child witness having power to
comprehend and understanding is a competent witness. Even a
child of a tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual
capacity to understand the questions and to answer those
rationally. It is for the trial Judge to decide whether the child
witness has sufficient intelligence and capacity to understand
questions so also to answer them rationally by noticing his
manners and assessing his intelligence by putting some primary
questions to him. The trial Judge can resort to any examination
avk 17/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
which may disclose the capacity and general intelligence as well
as understanding of the child witness. By putting proper questions
to child witness the court can test his capacity to depose and if a
person of tender years satisfy the requirement of intellectual
capacity and ability to give a rational account of what had
happened on a particular occasion, his competency as a witness is
established. With this position in law in respect of competency of
the child witness to depose, if one goes by evidence coming on
record from chief-examination of parents and cousin maternal
uncle of the alleged minor victim of the crime in question, then it
is clear from the evidence of his parents that the minor victim of
the crime in question had developed sufficient intelligence and
capacity to understand the things and events taking place and also
to answer questions put to him rationally. With this, one fails to
understand as to why the Investigator of the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police viz. PW5 Somanath Gharge, has failed to
record statement of the alleged minor victim of the crime in
question. In his evidence, neither PW5 Somanath Gharge, Dy.S.P.,
nor other prosecution witnesses have given any reason as to why
avk 18/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
the alleged minor victim of the crime in question is not shown as a
witness or as to why he is not examined as a witness during the
trial. If the prosecution has not examined the minor victim of the
crime in question because of his tender age, then naturally, a
question will arise as to whether at the relevant time, he was in a
position to disclose what happened to him to his parents and
relatives, and whether he was in a position to identify the alleged
offender correctly. Evidence on record, which is totally
inconsistent in the wake of version of PW4 Duryodhan Kadam
about the ability to talk and general understanding of the minor
victim is wholly insufficient to conclude about intellectual capacity
of the victim child to understand the events taking place. It is not
possible to conclude that the minor victim was having enough
sense of time, day and date. To crown this all, non-production of
the alleged victim of the crime before the trial court in order to
enable the learned Judge to test his capacity to depose poses a
serious doubt on the case of prosecution particularly when neither
the Investigator nor parents of the victim came up with a reason
for not producing the alleged victim as a witness before the court.
avk 19/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
13 On this backdrop, it is material to note that the alleged
disclosure of the minor victim in respect of the incident in
question to his mother was not immediate. Evidence of PW3
Sunita Pol shows that the disclosure about the incident was
allegedly made to her, by her minor son, on 1 st February 2010.
Her evidence makes it further clear that the alleged incident took
place on 26th January 2010. Evidence of PW3 Sunita Pol is totally
insufficient or scanty to infer any special occasion for making such
disclosure of the event to her, which allegedly took place on 26th
January 2010, on 1st February 2010. This creates a shadow of
doubt on case of the prosecution, leave apart the fact that capacity
of the alleged victim to understand and to form rational opinion is
in serious doubt.
14 Now let us examine whether what was heard by
prosecution witnesses viz., PW2 Nandkumar Pol, PW3 Sunita Pol
and PW4 Duryodhan Kadam allegedly from the victim minor child
aged about 3½ years constitutes piece of admissible evidence.
avk 20/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
Section 59 of the Evidence Act provides that all facts except
contents of documents or electronic record could be proved by
oral evidence. As per mandate of Section 60, oral evidence must,
in all cases be direct. When such evidence refers to a fact which
could be perceived by any sense other than hearing or witnessing,
the evidence must be of a witness who says he perceives it. It is
well settled that the best available evidence should be brought
before the court. This provision aims at rejection of evidence
which is not direct i.e. rejection of hearsay evidence. Whatever a
person is heard to say disclosed by another person is not
admissible. Something which a witness before the court says that
he heard from a third party who is not called as a witness, then
the statement of that witness is inadmissible to prove the truth of
the fact stated. In other words, secondary evidence of any oral
statement is not admissible. Thus, evidence not based on personal
knowledge but what has been heard from others being hearsay
evidence, is inadmissible. Rejection of hearsay evidence is for the
reason that such statement cannot be made subjected to the test of
cross examination. It may suffer from many possible deficiencies,
avk 21/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
suppressions, error and trustworthiness which lie underneath the
bare assertion. Therefore, evidence of a witness that he learnt the
fact from another person cannot be admitted, particularly, when
the another person does not step in the witness box and says that
he had narrated that particular fact to the particular witness. In
the light of this position in law, what PW2 Nandkumar Pol, PW3
Sunita Pol and PW4 Duryodhan Kadam are stating to be heard by
them from the alleged minor victim of the crime in question,
cannot constitute direct evidence which is admissible in law. On
the contrary, evidence of all these three witnesses, in respect of
the disclosure to them by the alleged minor victim of the crime in
question, is totally hearsay, and as such, inadmissible. The same
cannot form a basis for convicting the appellant / accused of
offences alleged against him. On this backdrop, non-examination
of the alleged minor victim of the crime in question and non-
disclosure of any reason for his non-examination by the
Investigating Officer PW5 Dy.S.P. Somanath Gharge, casts a serious
shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.
avk 22/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
15 Now let us examine evidence of the prosecution from
the angle of probability. For this purpose, one will have to
consider the evidence regarding the spot of the incident, location
as well as size of the spot of the incident, which according to the
prosecution was house of the appellant / accused, situated in the
neighbourhood of the house of the alleged minor victim of the
crime in question. As per version of PW2 Nandkumar Pol, the
appellant / accused resides at a distance of about 30 to 40 feet
from his house. As seen from the evidence coming on record from
his cross-examination, the appellant / accused was sharing his
house with his two sons, daughter-in-law and grandson. It is seen
from the cross-examination of PW3 Sunita Pol that on the day of
the alleged incident i.e. on 26th January 2010, sons as well as
daughter-in-law of appellant / accused were present in the house.
In this fact situation, size of house of the appellant / accused in
which as per version of PW3 Sunita Pol, the incident in question
occurred, assumes importance. PW1 Parashram Shinde is a panch
witness to the spot panchnama Exhibit 14 which shows the size of
avk 23/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
house of the appellant / accused. Evidence of this panch witness
as well as recitals in spot panchnama Exhibit 14 shows that house
of the appellant / accused is comprising of two room. The first
room is admeasuring 13 feet x 10 feet whereas the next room is
again admeasuring 13 feet x 10 feet, but having a partition for
kitchen in it. Thus, house of the appellant / accused is comprising
of two small rooms which he was sharing with his two sons,
daughter-in-law and a grandson, as seen from the version of PW2
Nandkumar Pol. The incident allegedly took place when the
incumbents of the said house viz., both sons and daughter-in-law
of the appellant / accused were present. How the alleged
incident of indulging in carnal intercourse against the order of
nature is committed by the appellant / accused in his small two
roomed house, wherein his two sons and his daughter-in-law were
present, is a fact which is not getting any explanation from the
evidence of the prosecution. This is an aspect which creates
reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution regarding the
alleged incident.
avk 24/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
16 Documents at Exhibit 18 are the documents of medical
examination of the alleged minor victim of the crime in question.
Evidence of the prosecution indicates that being a neighbour, the
appellant / accused was known to the prosecuting party. Rather,
it is stated in evidence that members of the prosecuting party had
been to the house of the appellant / accused for questioning him
in respect of the incident in question. Then, the FIR came to be
lodged and the alleged minor victim of the crime in question was
taken to the government hospital for medical examination. The
document at Exhibit 18 is the OPD Card of the government
hospital wherein history of the incident is scribed. This document
reflects that the history stated to the attending Medical Officer
was history of unnatural sexual assault by some known person.
Name of the offender is not reflected in the history recorded by
the Medical Officer in the OPD Card at Exhibit 18. The alleged
victim of the crime in question, being a minor child of about 3½
years, must have attended the government hospital along with his
parents. If really the victim of the crime in question had earlier
disclosed to his parents that it was the appellant / accused who
avk 25/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
had committed sexual assault on him, then naturally, parents of the
alleged minor victim of the crime in question, would not have spared
the appellant / accused but would have specifically stated his name
to the attending Medical Officer while recording the history of the
alleged incident. This is a factor which makes prosecution case
suspect. The documents of medical examination of the alleged minor
victim of the crime in question at Exhibit 18 are not disclosing any
evidence of the sexual assault on the alleged minor victim of the
crime in question. Thus, medical evidence sought to be adduced by
the prosecution is also not supporting the case of the prosecution.
17 The net result of foregoing discussion requires me to hold
that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the appellant /
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. As the offence punishable
under Section 377 of the IPC alleged against the appellant / accused
is not made out by the prosecution, the charge for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(iii) of S.C.S.T.Act fails. The
appellant / accused, as such, deserves benefit of doubt, and therefore
the order :
avk 26/27
202-APPEAL-820-2010.doc
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1,
Sangli, in Special Case No.6 of 2010, on 16 th
September 2010, is quashed and set aside.
iii)The appellant / accused is acquitted of offences
punishable under Section 377 of the IPC and
Section 3(1)(iii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
iv)The appellant / accused be released from prison
forthwith, if not required in any other case,
v) Fine amount, if any, paid by him, be refunded to
him.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 27/27
