Bombay High Court
Raghu Ganu Naitam vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Pso ... on 29 May, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apeal630.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.630/2003
Raghu S/o Ganu Naitam,
aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Labourer,
R/o Kolsa, Tahsil and Distt. Chandrapur. ..Appellant.
..Vs..
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Ramnagar,
Chandrapur. ..Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri N.R. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE : 29.5.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri N.R. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent.
2. The appellant - accused has challenged the judgment passed by the
Sessions Court convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The
appellant - accused has also challenged the conviction under Section 506 (B) of
the Indian Penal Code sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
2 apeal630.03
six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Sau. Anjana used
to work as a Forest Labourer and on the day of the incident she was on her
work alongwith other 15 to 20 labourers in Kolsa Forest, that Forest Guard
Shri Aasutkar had asked her to fetch water from a place situated in the interior
of the forest and Shri Aasutkar had sent the accused Raghu alongwith her and
while returning the accused committed crime. According to the prosecution,
though the incident occurred on 21st February, 1998 it could be reported on
23rd February, 1998 at the police station Ram Nagar as the prosecutrix narrated
about the incident to the Police Patil Kolsa in the evening on 22 nd February,
1998 and the police station Ram Nagar is situated at a distance from Kolsa.
After the incident was reported, the investigation was conducted and after
completing the necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur and as the offence is triable by the Court
of Sessions the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court
framed charges against the accused, read over and explained the charges to the
accused, the accused did not accept the guilt and, therefore, the trial was
conducted. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge
recorded that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused has
committed the offence and is liable for conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 376 and Section 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3 apeal630.03
3. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P I have examined the record
and have gone through the judgment.
4. The medical certificate issued by Dr. Anand Krishnarao Hazarey
(P.W.4) after examination of the accused and the evidence of P.W.4 show that
there were no injuries on the person of the accused suggesting any violence by
him. The medical certificate (Exh. No.39) issued by Dr. Arpita Pradip
Wawarkar (P.W.7) after examination of the prosecutrix Anjana shows that
injuries were not found at the back and on the chest of the prosecutrix, except
for an abrasion measuring 3 centimeter in length on the right side leg laterally
situated below the knee. Undisputedly, the prosecutrix Anjana was aged about
30 years at the time of the incident and was married. Considering the above
facts and the absence of injuries on the person of the accused as well as the
person of the prosecutrix Anjana it has to be held that the conclusions of the
learned Sessions Judge are not sustainable. It is relevant to note that according
to the prosecution the prosecutrix was sent to fetch water from the interior of
forest and the accused was asked to accompany her and about 15 to 20
labourers were working in the forest and the prosecution has not brought on
the record the distance of the place of incident from the place where the
labourers were working. The prosecution has not brought on the record the
distance of the place from where water was to be fetched from the place where
4 apeal630.03
the labourers were working. I find that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case beyond doubt and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant -
accused is unsustainable.
5. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the conviction of the
appellant - accused under Section 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Hence, the following order:
(i) The appellant - accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 376 and Section 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.
(iii) The amount of fine deposited by the appellant pursuant to the
impugned judgment be refunded to the appellant.
(iv) The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
