State Of Mah. Thru Police ... vs Baliram Namdeo Kasote
2017 Latest Caselaw 2504 Bom

Judgment

                                                                     apeal162.07 1

                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2007

State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Sub-Inspector,
Hiwarkhed Police Station, 
District Akola.                                               ..... Appellant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

Baliram Namdeo Kasote,
Aged about 36 years,
Resident of Pimparkhed,
Taluka Akot, District Akola.               ..... Respondent.

==============================================================
          Mrs. K.H. Joshi, Addll.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
          None appears for the Respondent/Accused.
==============================================================


                 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : MAY 11, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : N.W. Sambre, J.)

1. In Sessions Trial No.11 of 2006 learned Ad hoc

Additional Sessions Judge, Akot acquitted the

.....2/-

Judgment

apeal162.07 1

respondent/accused for an offence punishable under

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code vide his judgment

and order dated 20.12.2006. As such, this appeal by the

State against acquittal.

2. The prosecution case as noticed from the

available record is, on 21.12.2005 PW1 prosecutrix while

returning from the field, was caught hold by the

respondent/accused in nullah (stream) and dragged her

towards slope of stream and committed the offence of

rape.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.

K.H. Joshi for the appellant/State, while trying to make

out the case for showing indulgence by this Court,

invites attention to the evidence of PW1 victim so as to

submit that learned Judge of the Court below has

.....3/-

Judgment

apeal162.07 1

committed an error in believing and appreciating the

evidence of said witness. According to her, upon re-

appreciation of the evidence of the said victim, it is a

case of conviction.

4. None appears for the respondent/accused.

5. Upon perusal of the evidences on record it is

required to be noted that PW1 victim was examined at

Exhibit 22 and she has narrated that while returning

back from the field, respondent/accused has committed

the offence, in question. She has in categorical terms

stated that she had given a call and PW4 Purushottam

Gawate, who was going to Hiwarkhed by the same way,

had come there and narrates about scuffle between

Purushottam and the respondent/accused. She has

stated that there are trees and thorny shrubs on the

.....4/-

Judgment

apeal162.07 1

place of incident. She has further stated that it is

difficult to pave the way from the said spot because of

thorny shrubs and bushes and the person passing from

the said way is not visible from the spot of the incident.

It is also clarified that a person standing at a distance of

15 feet is not visible from the spot of the incident. She

then claimed that PW4 Purushottam responded to her

call. She claimed that she had seen PW4 Purushottam

for the first time when he gave a kick blow on the

forehead of the respondent/accused whereas in earlier

part of evidence she narrated that it is she who had

called Purushottam to the spot of the incident.

6. Apart from above, the evidence of husband of

the victim, who has stated on hearsay basis, claims that

when there was intercourse, the victim was enjoying the

same.

.....5/-

Judgment

apeal162.07 1

7. The evidence of PW4 Purushottam in the

aforesaid background if is appreciated, it is to be noted

that the same is required to be disbelieved particularly

in the background of the evidences of the husband of

the victim, the victim herself and the alleged political

enmity.

8. Apart from above, though the narration of the

spot of the incident which is claimed to be a thorny

shrub, there is an absence of any injury on the

the body parts of the victim. The victim claims to be

aged about 28 years and no internal injury was noticed

on her body.

9. In the aforesaid background, the view

expressed by learned Judge of the Court below while

acquitting the respondent/accused, in my opinion,

.....6/-

Judgment

apeal162.07 1

appears to be a plausible view and it cannot be termed

to be an impossible view. In view thereof, in absence of

any perversity or any illegality, no case for interference

is made out. As such, the criminal appeal fails and is

dismissed.

                   JUDGE                                             JUDGE

!!  BRW  !!




                                                                                 ...../-