Bombay High Court
Jageshwar Ramdash Rahangdale vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Gondia on 29 May, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apeal622.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.622/2003
Jageshwar S/o Ramdas Rahangdale,
A/a. 29 Yrs., Occu. Furniture Business,
R/o Goregaon, Tah. Goregaon,
Distt. Gondia. ..Appellant.
..Vs..
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer of the
Police Station, Amgaon, Distt. Gondia. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ms. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE : 29.5.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Geeta Tiwari, A.P.P. for the respondent.
2. The appellant - accused has challenged the judgment passed by the
Sessions Court convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 363 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
According to the prosecution, the accused developed intimacy with
the victim Laxmi and giving assurance of marriage enticed her away from the
2 apeal622.03
lawful guardianship of her father without his consent and committed rape on
her. According to the prosecution, at the time of incident, the victim Laxmi
was minor. The complaint was lodged against the accused with the police
station Amgaon on 2nd February, 2000 pursuant to which investigation was
undertaken in which it was found that the date of birth of victim Laxmi is 5 th
November, 1983 and according to the victim the offence of rape was
committed about 5 to 6 months prior to 26 th January, 2000. After completing
the investigation and the necessary formalities, the charge-sheet for offences
punishable under Section 376, 366 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code was filed
against the accused before the learned Magistrate and as the accused was
charged with the offences triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed, read over and
explained to the accused, the accused did not accept the guilt and, therefore,
trial was conducted. After trial, Sessions Court recorded that the prosecution
has failed to prove that the accused committed rape on the victim, however, it
recorded that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused is
liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. I have examined the record
and have gone through the impugned judgment. The victim (Laxmi) has
deposed that she was taken by the accused on motorcycle from the market
3 apeal622.03
place i.e. from the shop of Ganesh where she had gone to purchase mala
alongwith her friend Sushila. Laxmi has deposed that the accused had come
there on motorcycle and another person Vyankat also came with the accused
on another motorcycle, that Laxmi was asked to sit on the motorcycle driven by
the accused and her friend Sushila was asked to sit on the motorcycle driven by
Vyankat and then victim was taken to temple where the accused put
Mangalsutra around the neck of Laxmi and then took her behind the temple
and asked her to remove the clothes.
4. The Sessions Court has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution
as far as the offence publishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned. After going through the evidence of Laxmi I find that the
prosecution has not been able to prove that the ingredients of the offence
punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code are proved by the
prosecution. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the
appellant - accused being swayed by the fact that the victim Laxmi was minor
at the time of the incident. The considerations for convicting the
appellant - accused are unsustainable.
5. Hence, the following order:
(i) The judgment passed by the Sessions Court convicting the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is set
4 apeal622.03
aside.
(ii) The appellant - accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) The amount of fine deposited by the appellant as per the impugned
judgment be refunded to the appellant - accused.
(iv) The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(v) The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
