Ravi Kumar Tejaram Bhagat vs State Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2663 Bom

                                                                                1                                                                apeal666.03

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

                                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.666/2003

Ravi Kumar S/o Tejaram Bhagat, 
A/a. 26 Yrs., Occu. Labour, 
R/o Shejgaon, Tah. and Distt. Gondia.                                                                                                                            ..Appellant.
               ..Vs..
The State of Maharashtra, 
through the Police Station Officer, 
Police Station, Gangazhari, 
Distt. Gondia.                                                                                                                                       ..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 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 rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

According to the prosecution, prosecutrix Gunwantabai and the

accused were acquainted, that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was

student of 11th standard and was minor, that the prosecutrix was enticed away

by the accused from the lawful guardianship of her father without his consent

with the intention of forcing her for illicit intercourse. According to the

2 apeal666.03

prosecution, the accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on

5 or 6 occasions. Hemraj - father of prosecutrix filed the complaint on which

investigation was undertaken and after completing the necessary formalities,

charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 376, 363 and 366 of the

Indian Penal Code was filed against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate,

First Class and as the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions the case was

committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed the charges

against the accused, explained the charges to the accused and as the accused

did not accept the guilt, the trial was conducted. After conducting the trial, the

Sessions Court recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the

accused is liable for conviction for the offences punishable under Section 376

and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Sessions Court

recorded that the prosecution has proved that the accused is liable for

conviction for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal

Code and accordingly sentenced him as per the impugned judgment.

3. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. I have examined the record

and have gone through the impugned judgment.

4. The deposition of the prosecutrix Gunwantabai (P.W.1) reveals that

there are contradictions in her testimony vis-a-vis her statement recorded

earlier. The prosecutrix has explained the contradictions by deposing that the

statements made by her earlier were under the pressure of the accused. The

3 apeal666.03

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

After going through the evidence on the record, I find that the

prosecution has not been able to bring on the record sufficient material to show

that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence punishable under

Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code existed.

In view of the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix

Gunwantabai and as I find that the evidence on the record is not sufficient to

convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian

Penal Code, the conviction of the accused has to be set aside.

5. Hence, the following order:

(i) The impugned judgment convicting the appellant - accused is set

aside.

(ii) The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.

(iii) The bail bond of the accused stands cancelled.

(iv) The appellant - accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under

Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v)                   The appeal is allowed accordingly.

                                                      
                                                                                   JUDGE        

Tambaskar.