Jitendra Rajmohan Mazi vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 3924 Bom

                                                                          1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.321 OF 2017


            Jitendra Rajmohan Mazi,
            aged 31 years, R/o. Chiroli,
            Tal-Maharajganj,
            Dist. Shivang, State of Bihar
            (Was residing at Sindhudurgnagari
            Railway Station, prior to his arrest)

            C/6623 (Presently lodged at
            Kolhapur Central Prison,
            Kalamba, Kolhapur - 7)                                 ...Appellant

                    Versus

            The State of Maharashtra
            (At the instance of Kudal Police Station,
             in respect of C.R. No. 33/2015)                       ...Respondent


            Ms. Nasreen Sajid Khalique Ayubi for the Appellant

            Mr. P. H. Gaikwad-Patil, A.P.P for the Respondent- State


                                               CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
                                               WEDNESDAY, 3rd MARCH 2021

            JUDGMENT :

1 By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and

order dated 21st November 2016, passed by the learned Special Judge,

SQ Pathan 1/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

Sindhudurg at Oros in Special Case No.44 of 2015, convicting and

sentencing him as under:

- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 4, 6 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year;

- for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 50 days.

- for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 50 days.

All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2 In the intervening night of 30 th September 2015 and 1st October

2015, PW 1-`X' (minor girl aged 7 years) was kidnapped from the lawful

guardianship of her parents from the Sindhudurgnagari Railway Station,

where they were sleeping and taken by the appellant towards a close-by

SQ Pathan 2/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

forest area, where she was sexually assaulted by the appellant. After the

sexual assault on `X', she returned to the platform and informed her parents

about the same. PW 7-Arun Shetye, Senior Station Master, on learning of

the incident of sexual assault on `X', immediately informed the police of

Sindhudurgnagari Police Station. When the police reached, the appellant

fled from the place where he was residing with others. PW 2 - mother of

`X' lodged a complaint/FIR on 1st October 2015 at 4:00 p.m. The appellant

was arrested from Oros on 1st October 2015. Thereafter, statements of

witnesses came to be recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed as against the

appellant in the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO).

Charge was framed as against the appellant, to which, the

appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 18 witnesses

i.e. PW 1-`X' (minor aged 7 years); PW 2-mother of `X' and complainant;

PW 3-Satyawan Malave, panch to the (i) spot panchanama dated 1st October

2015 (Exhibit 20), (ii) arrest panchanama dated 1st October 2015 (Exhibit

21) and (iii) recovery of clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the

incident, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act dated 2 nd October 2015

SQ Pathan 3/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

(Exhibit 24); PW 4-Ajit Angsali, who had seen one girl weeping and

running towards the railway platform on 1st October 2015 at 12:15 a.m;

PW 5-Rohidas Munde, Assistant Chemical Analyser, who proved the DNA

report (Exhibit 180); PW 6-Chetan Mhadgut, Medical Officer, Civil

Hospital, Oros, who examined the appellant on 1 st October 2015 (the

medical report of the appellant is at Exhibit 34); PW 7-Arun Shetye, Senior

Station Master, who had informed the Sindhudurgnagari Police Station and

identified the appellant as being the person sleeping on the bench on the

railway platform, where `X' was sleeping with her parents on 30 th

September 2015; PW 8-Mandar Dhuri, panch to the test identification

parade carried out on 3rd October 2015 at the Tahsil Office, Kudal; PW 9-

Balasaheb Joshi, Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Sindhudurg, who

examined victim-`X' on 1st October 2015 at 2:00 a.m (the medical

certificate is at Exhibit 43); PW 10-Gama Jankar, who was working as a

Site Supervisor with Ajit Kajve; PW 11-Shashikant Sawant, Police Head

Constable, Oros, who carried the sealed articles for depositing the same to

the Forensic Science Laboratory on 2nd October 2015; PW 12-Minakshi

Rathod, Ladies Police Naik, Oros, who recorded the complaint/FIR of

PW 2 (mother of `X'); PW 13-Mahesh Paste, who arrested the appellant

from Oros; PW 14-Gourav Nagzarkar, who handed over the OPD case-

papers of the appellant; PW 15-Anirudha Gavade, PSI, Sindhudurgnagari

SQ Pathan 4/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

Police Station. The said witness seized the clothes of `X' from PW 2

(mother of `X'); PW 16-Pravin Lokare, Executive Magistrate, Kudal, who

conducted the test identification parade on 3 rd October 2015 at about 4:30

p.m. and PW 17-Padmaja Chavan, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the

Investigating Officer.

After the prosecution examined its witnesses, the statement of

the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The defence of the appellant was that of denial and false implication.

According to the appellant, as Ajit Kajve, his employer had not paid him for

three months, there was a quarrel between him and Kajve, as a result of

which, he was removed from work. According to the appellant, he was

falsely implicated in the said case at the instance of his employer-Ajit

Kajve.

After hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on

record - both, oral and documentary, the learned Special Judge, Sindhudurg

at Oros, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above.

3 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

prosecution has not established the identity of the appellant as being the

SQ Pathan 5/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

very person, who was sleeping on the platform of the railway station, where

`X' was sleeping with her family, on the intervening night of 30 th September

2015 and 1st October 2015. She further submits that the identification of

the appellant by witnesses i.e. PW 1-`X' , PW 2-mother of `X'

(complainant) and PW 7-Arun Shetye, Senior Station Master, cannot be

relied upon, inasmuch as, the incident had taken place at midnight, and as

such there was no opportunity for anyone to see the appellant. She also

assailed the DNA report, which shows that the blood found on the

appellant's clothes was that of `X'. She further submits that the prosecution

ought to have examined Sandesh Samant, Suresh Sharma, Ajit Kajve and

Naresh, to show the complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime. She

submits that non-examination of the said witnesses was fatal to the

prosecution case.

4 Learned A.P.P submitted that no interference was warranted in

the impugned judgment and order. He submitted that the prosecution, by

leading cogent evidence, had proved beyond reasonable doubt, that it was

the appellant who kidnapped `X' and thereafter sexually assaulted her. He

submitted that the appellant has been identified by PW 2- mother of `X' and

PW 7- Arun Shetye, Senior Station Master, in the test identification parade

held on 3rd October 2015. He submitted that even PW 1-`X' has identified

SQ Pathan 6/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

the appellant in Court. According to the learned A.P.P, the evidence of PW

1-`X', PW 2-mother of `X' and PW 7-Arun Shetye, Senior Station Master,

is duly corroborated by the medical evidence on record as well as the DNA

report.

5 Perused the papers with the assistance of the learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. Having gone through the evidence

and the documents on record and having heard the submissions advanced

by the respective parties, I am of the opinion that no interference is

warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence

passed by the learned Special Judge, for the reasons set-out hereinunder.

6 PW 1-`X' (minor aged 7 years), has, in her evidence, stated

that she was studying in the 4 th standard, at her native place and had come

to Oros, 3 to 4 months prior to the date of incident. She has stated that her

father was ill and that they were taking him to Kudal from Oros and hence,

had come to the railway station; that as they missed the train i.e. Diva

Passenger Railway, they were sitting in front of the railway booking office;

that one person was sitting on the platform and was looking towards them;

that they slept on the railway platform; that the said person also slept on one

of the benches at the railway platform; that at about 12 midnight, the said

SQ Pathan 7/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

person picked her up and took her at a distance of about 5 to 10 minutes, in

a jungle, removed her nicker and slept on her person; that blood started

oozing from her private part; that the said person threatened her that if she

disclosed the incident to her parents, he would kill her by throwing a stone

on her; that she told him that she would not disclose it to her parents and

that if her parents asked her, she would tell them that she went to answer the

nature's call; that the said person left her in the jungle and went away; that

she walked towards the railway station from the said spot, seeing the light

of the railway station; that on reaching the railway station, she disclosed

the incident of sexual assault to her mother, by the person sleeping on the

bench; that her mother disclosed the incident to the railway station master;

and that she was taken to the hospital, where she was treated. PW 1-`X' has

further stated that her statement was recorded by the police and thereafter,

before the Court. She has stated that the said person was wearing a black

coloured pant and a shirt having squares, when he was at the railway station

and has given his description. She has also deposed with respect to the

clothes worn by her and has identified the said clothes i.e. blue skirt having

blood stains (Article 11), nicker having blood stains (Article 13) and blue

shirt (Article 12). She has further stated that her statement was recorded by

the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Oros (Exhibit 12). She has identified her

thumb impression on the said statement. The witness has also identified the

SQ Pathan 8/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

appellant as being the same person, who kidnapped her and thereafter,

sexually assaulted her.

A perusal of the cross-examination shows that the said witness

has withstood the cross-examination. Nothing material has been brought on

record in the cross-examination of the said witness to disbelieve or discredit

her testimony. The suggestion given to the said witness that she was

deposing falsely at the instance of her mother, has been denied by her. It is

pertinent to note that certain questions were put to the said witness before

her evidence commenced, to ascertain whether she understood the questions

put to her and to ascertain whether she understood the sanctity of oath. The

learned Judge, after confirming that the witness understood the sanctity and

importance of oath, administered oath to the said witness-`X'.

7 The evidence of PW 1-`X' with respect to her kidnapping and

of sexual assault on her, is duly corroborated by PW 2 (mother of `X').

PW 2 (mother of `X' ) has deposed that `X' was 7 years of age at the

relevant time; that as her husband was unwell, they were taking him to a

dispensary at Kudal; that her husband, son and `X' were with her; that they

went to the railway station at Oros at about 7/7:30 p.m, as they were to take

the Diva Passenger train; that as they missed the train, they stayed at the

SQ Pathan 9/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

railway station; that one person was sitting on a bench by their side for

some time; that after some time, the children fell asleep and hence, they too

went to sleep near the office of ticket booking; that at about 00:30 hours,

`X' came crying and disclosed that the person sitting on the bench had

gagged her mouth, lifted her and taken her towards the jungle, where he

removed her nicker and slept on her; that he put his private part in hers, due

to which, there was oozing of blood; that she saw `X' and they all started

weeping; that the Railway Master came and asked them why they were

weeping, pursuant to which, she disclosed the said incident. PW 2 has

further stated that the Railway Officials went in search of the said person

and that the Railway Officials also called the police. She has further stated

that `X' was taken to the hospital. PW 2-mother of `X', has identified the

complaint given by her. The same is at Exhibit 14. The same was recorded

at about 4:00 a.m. on 1st October 2015. According to PW 2, her statement

was also recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. She has identified

her thumb impression on the said statement which is at Exhibit 15. PW 2

has further stated that she was called to the jail at Sawantwadi for

identifying the accused. She has stated how she identified the appellant,

who was standing at serial No. 5 in the row by touching him. PW 2 has

also identified the clothes worn by `X' at the time of the incident i.e.

Articles 11, 12 and 13.

SQ Pathan                                                                                    10/22




                                                                              1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

In the cross-examination, PW 2 has admitted that the unknown

person who had taken her daughter-`X', had worn black pant and shirt

having checks and that there were no other passengers there. She has also

admitted that her son and daughter were sleeping together. Several

suggestions were put to the said witness, however, the said suggestions

have been denied by her. She has also denied the suggestion that she had

identified the appellant by mistake in the identification parade. She has

denied the suggestion that she had falsely filed the complaint/FIR, as

against the appellant. The evidence of PW 2 inspires confidence and there

is nothing on record to disbelieve the said witness or discredit her

testimony. It is pertinent to note that the incident is alleged to have taken

place on the intervening night of 30 th September 2015 and 1st October 2015

and the identification parade was held promptly, within two days thereafter

i.e. on 3rd October 2015 and as such, PW 2, having seen the appellant at the

railway station, where they were sitting and later sleeping, could well

identify the appellant. Therefore, the question of making a mistake in

identifying the appellant is completely ruled out.

8 Infact, the evidence of PW 1-`X' and PW 2-mother of `X', is

corroborated by PW 7-Arun Shetye. PW 7 has stated that he was serving

as a Senior Station Master at Sindhudurgnagari, at the relevant time. He

SQ Pathan 11/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

has stated that he came to the railway station on 30 th September 2015 at

10:45 p.m, and saw one couple sleeping along with two children in front of

the ticket booking office. He has stated that he saw one more person

sleeping on a cement platform before them; that the said person was dark in

colour and was aged between 30 to 35 years. He has stated that at around

12:20 a.m, when he was at the counter, one small girl came weeping and

was disclosing something to her mother; seeing the girl weeping, he asked

his colleague-Sandesh Sawant to make inquiry as to why the said girl was

weeping; that Sandesh Sawant went and asked PW 2 (mother of `X') and

on return, disclosed that the person sitting on the platform had raped her

daughter. PW 7-Arun Shetye has further stated that on learning of the

same, he went outside and verified; that he found that `X' was bleeding

from her mouth and that there was blood at the spot where she was sitting;

that the parents of `X' informed him about the incident, pursuant to which,

he asked his employees to take search of the said person; that they learnt

that the said person was working at the railway site; that the employees

went to the site and inquired as to who had gone to sleep at the railway

station; that the employees learnt that a person by the name Jitendra

(appellant) had fled; that they learnt that the appellant was working as a

driver on the vehicle of Ajit Kajve, pursuant to which, he was called, after

which, `X' was taken to the hospital. PW 7-Arun Shetye has identified the

SQ Pathan 12/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

appellant as being the same person, who was sleeping on the platform. He

has also stated that he informed the police about the said incident. The said

witness has also stated that he was called to Sawantwadi jail for identifying

the accused; that he identified the appellant, who was standing at No. 3 in

the row, by touching him, before the Tahsildar. He has also admitted that

on 8th October 2015, his statement was recorded before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. PW 7-Arun

Shetye has admitted his signature as it appears on the said statement

(Exhibit 38).

In the cross-examination, certain minor omissions were

brought on record i.e. there is no mention of the name of Sandesh Sawant in

his statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, the said

omission is not a material omission, which goes to the root of the case.

PW 7-Arun Shetye, in his cross-examination, has denied that on the date of

the incident, he had left the railway station premises and that he was

deposing falsely that he had seen the appellant sleeping on a cement

platform opposite to where PW 2-mother of `X', was sleeping with her

family.

PW 7-Arun Shetye was present on duty at the relevant time.

There is no reason to disbelieve his presence at the railway station at the

SQ Pathan 13/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

relevant time, nor there is any reason to disbelieve his evidence that he had

seen the appellant sleeping on the cement platform, opposite to where PW

2-mother of `X', was sleeping with her family. Nothing is brought on

record in the cross-examination to show why PW 7 - Arun would falsely

depose against the appellant, more particularly, when the appellant was not

even known to the said witness.

9 Merely because Ajit Kajve (employer of the appellant), who

took PW 1-`X' to the hospital, was not examined, does not, in any way, cast

a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case, more particularly, when

prosecution had examined all the relevant witnesses.

10 It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has also proved the

164 statements of witnesses i.e. PW 1-`X', PW 2-mother of `X' and PW 7-

Arun Shetye, recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is

nothing to disbelieve the recording of the said statements before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate. All the three witnesses have stood by their statements

and there is no material omission/contradiction brought in the evidence of

the said witnesses.

SQ Pathan                                                                                         14/22




                                                                              1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc




            11             In this context, it would also be apposite to note, that the test

identification parade was conducted by PW 16-Pravin Lokare, Executive

Magistrate, on 3rd October 2015. In order to prove the test identification

parade, the prosecution has examined PW 16- Pravin Lokare, Executive

Magistrate as well as PW 8-Mandar Dhuri, panch to the test identification

parade, which was conducted at the Tahsil Office at Kudal. A perusal of the

evidence of both, PW 8-Mandar Dhuri and PW 16-Pravin Lokare with

respect to the test identification parade conducted on 3 rd October 2015,

inspires confidence. In the said test identification parade which was

conducted, both PW 2-mother of `X' and PW 7-Arun Shetye, Senior Station

Master, have identified the appellant as being the person, who was sitting

on the platform. Thus, the identity of the appellant is clearly established by

the prosecution.

12 The aforesaid evidence is duly corroborated by the medical

evidence. PW 9-Dr. Balasaheb Joshi examined PW 1-`X' on 1 st October

2015 at 2:00 a.m. Dr. Joshi, in his evidence, has stated that he was attached

to the Civil Hospital as Casualty Medical Officer on 1 st October 2015. He

has stated that at about 2:00 a.m, `X' was brought to the Civil Hospital; that

her parents were with her; that he inquired with the prosecutrix, who

SQ Pathan 15/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

disclosed the history of sexual assault on her; on physical examination, he

found that PW 1-`X', aged 7 years old, was bleeding from her vagina, had

swollen lacerations, labia minora bilateral laceration 1 cm in length, lateral

vaginal wall laceration 1 cm, small tear on right side of hymen. On

gynecological examination by gynecologist, following injuries were found :

1. One degree perennial tear with bleeding with edema of edges.

2. Lateral vaginal wall tear measuring 1 cm x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.

Bilateral bleeding plus swelling present.

3. Paraurethral tear measuring 1 cm in length.

4. Hymen small tear on right side with bleeding present.

PW 9-Dr. Balasaheb Joshi also found an abrasion on either side

of X's cheek 0.25 x 0.25 cms. According to PW 9, the injuries found on `X'

were due to forceful sexual act, as a result of which, there was bleeding.

The said witness produced the medical certificate (Exhibit 43). He also

collected the sample of blood, nails, swab from labia minora, vaginal swab,

survical swab and handed over the same to the police for medical analysis.

Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of the said

witness to disbelieve his testimony with respect to the sexual assault on `X'.

SQ Pathan                                                                                      16/22




                                                                        1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc




            13             Thus, the evidence on record shows that PW 1-`X' was a

victim of sexual assault and that the appellant was the perpetrator of the

same.

14 PW 3-Satyawan Malave, is the panch to the spot panchanama,

arrest panchanama and seizure of appellant's clothes under Section 27. He

has identified the clothes of the appellant recovered at the instance of the

appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act i.e. half pant (Article 14)

and seized towel (Article 15). The appellant was wearing the said clothes at

the time of sexual assault. PW 10-Gama Jankar working as a Site

Supervisor with Ajit Kajve has identified the clothes i.e. Articles 14 and 15,

worn by the appellant at the time of the incident. PW 10-Gama Jankar has

stated that he was serving as a Site Supervisor with Contractor-Ajit Kajve

and that in October 2015, work was going on at the Sindhudurgnagari

Railway Station; that at the site of work, one tin shed was erected and that

he along with Maruti Shelke, Raju Kate, Jitendra Mazi (appellant), Suresh

Sharma and other workers were residing in the said tin shed. He has further

stated that on 30th September 2015, at about 6/6-30 p.m, work was over;

that at about 9:00 p.m, when they had dinner, the appellant was not in the

shed; that at about 10:00 p.m, when the appellant came to the shed, he was

SQ Pathan 17/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

wearing a check shirt and black pant; that after dinner, when he went to the

station to sleep, he was wearing bermuda and a green coloured towel. PW

10-Gama has identified both, the half pant (Article 14) and towel (Article

15). According to PW 10-Gama, the appellant returned to the tin shed to

sleep at 12:30 midnight. He has stated that when the police came soon

thereafter and started enquiring as to who had gone to the station, the

appellant fled from the spot; that they went to the railway station and saw

one girl at the station, with blood oozing from her mouth and private part.

PW 10-Gama, has further stated that his master Ajit Kajve came and took

the girl and her parents to the hospital in his vehicle. He has stated that his

statement was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as per his say

and has identified his signature on the same. Although, it was suggested to

the said witness in the cross-examination, that there was a dispute between

Ajit Kajve and the appellant, on account of payment of money, the same has

been denied by the witness.

15 Thus, the evidence of PW 10-Gama shows that the appellant

had changed his clothes at around 10:00 p.m, from check shirt and black

pant to half pant (bermuda) and towel. PW 1-`X' and PW 2-`X's mother

have stated that the appellant had worn check shirt and black pant, when

they saw him on the railway platform before they slept. The half pant and

SQ Pathan 18/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

towel were recovered at the instance of the appellant. They were blood

stained. PW 3-Satyawan has proved the said recovery and panchanama

(Exhibit 24).

16 Coupled with the aforesaid evidence on record, the complicity

of the appellant in the crime is also seen from the DNA report (Exhibit

180). The DNA report shows that the DNA profiles obtained from blood-

stain cuttings of Exhibit 1-Skirt, Exhibit 2-Half Shirt, Exhibit 3-Small Pant

(Exhibits 1 to 3 of `X'), Exhibit 4-Half Pant (bermuda) and Exhibit 5-Towel

(of the appellant) are identical and from one and the same source of female

origin and match with the DNA profile of `X'.

17 Considering the overwhelming material on record, no

interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of

conviction. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

18 The victim girl was 7 years of age, when she was kidnapped by

the appellant from the railway station, when she was sleeping with her

family and taken to a nearby place and sexually assaulted. The victim girl

ought to be awarded compensation under Section 357-A(2) Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the matter be sent to the District Legal Services Authority

SQ Pathan 19/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

(`DLSA'), Sindhudurg, Oras, for awarding compensation. DLSA to

complete necessary formalities and award compensation to the victim girl,

if not already done. DLSA shall do the needful at the earliest, and

preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.

19 Before parting with the judgment, it is heartening to note the

efforts taken by the police (Sindhudurgnagari) in the prompt collection of

evidence. Their efforts need to be acknowledged and lauded. The

promptness with which the investigation has been done is evident from the

following. The incident of sexual assault took place on the intervening

night of 30th September 2015 and 1st October 2015 between 10 - 10:30 p.m.

to 12:30 a.m; the police of Oros Police Station, on receipt of information

immediately reached the spot; the girl `X', aged 7 years was medically

examined at 2:00 a.m on 1st October 2015; FIR was registered on 1st

October 2015 at 4:00 a.m; the clothes of the victim girl were seized under a

panchanama at 10:30 a.m. (Exhibit 16) on 1st October 2015; the spot

panchanama was also drawn on the same day i.e. 1st October 2015 at around

11:30 a.m; the appellant was also arrested on 1st October 2015 at around

2:30 p.m; letters were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 1 st and 2nd

October 2015 i.e. clothes of `X' with other articles and clothes of appellant

respectively; test identification parade was held on 3 rd October 2015 at

SQ Pathan 20/22

1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc

4:30 p.m, promptly; the statements of the witnesses were recorded under

Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 8 th October 2015 and 27th

October 2015; and all MLC/CA reports were received on 29th October 2015.

Thus, practically in one month, the entire investigation was complete with

CA reports in hand. Indeed, a feat and a rarity.

20 In the present case, the police of Sindhdurgnagari have done a

remarkable job and so has the prosecutor of the trial Court. Needless to say,

it could not have been possible without the cooperation of the prosecutor

and defence lawyer. The efforts of the citizenry, in assisting the police,

apprehend the appellant, at the earliest, coming forward to depose before

the Court as responsible citizens and by standing by their statements, also

needs to be acknowledged and appreciated. The Judge completed the trial

by 21st November 2016. The mandate of POCSO Act, to complete trial

within 1 year, duly complied with. Indeed, commendable. Speedy justice

is a component of social justice, since the community, as a whole, is

concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a

reasonable time and if the criminal is innocent, he/she being absolved from

the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings. Courts must strive to ensure

that cases, do not fall prey to the slow motion syndrome, which is lethal to

the administration of justice, whatever the ultimate outcome.

SQ Pathan                                                                                     21/22




                                                                       1-apeal-321-2017-J.doc




            21             If cases are investigated with diligence, alacrity and

promptness, in the manner as aforesaid and trial conducted in the manner,

in which it has, the perpetrators of crime can be brought to book at the

earliest. Probably, this case can be used as an `ideal case', by the police,

on how an investigation can be done.

22 Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to the District

Legal Services Authority, Sindhudurg as well as Director General of Police,

Maharashtra, forthwith.

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

SQ Pathan                                                                                   22/22