The State Of Maharashtra vs Govind @ Gotumama Balkrishna ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 324 Bom

                                             1/25                        APEAL-475-2001.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  `
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2001

The State of Maharashtra                               ...APPELLANT
                                                         (Orig. Complainant)
         Versus

XYZ                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                                                      (Orig. Accused)
                                              ...
Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for State.
Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye a/w. Ms. Priyanka Chavan & Ms. Sarika
Shetye for Respondent-Orig. Accused.
                                ...
                          CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
                                    S. P. TAVADE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 8th DECEMBER, 2021.

PRONOUNCED ON: 10th JANUARY, 2022.

JUDGMENT: [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]

1. At the outset it is required to be noted that since the

allegations leveled by the victim against the respondent are in

respect of the alleged sexual assault, therefore, identity of accused-

respondent and the victim girl needs to be concealed. The accused-

respondent and victim girl is referred to as XYZ and ABC,

respectively. Registry to maintain the record accordingly.

2. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the

judgment and order dated 25.08.2000 passed by the Additional

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

2/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

Sessions Judge, Nashik, thereby acquitting the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(for short 'IPC').

3. The prosecution story in short can be summarized as

under:-

The Respondent-Original Accused at the relevant time

was residing at the upper foor of the house of complainant's

father-in-law namely Dwarkanath Joshi. The victim at the relevant

time aged about 5 years, was residing with her grant father. On

07.03.1997, at about 6.30 pm., the victim girl asked for another pant

(nicker) as she wanted to change her pant. Complainant i.e. mother

of the victim girl saw blood stains on the nicker of victim girl. The

complainant also witnessed blood on the thighs of victim girl. She

asked the victim what is happened with her? The victim girl told her

that XYZ, who was staying at the upper foor of their house, took

her in nearby wada at upper foor in one room and in that wada he

removed her nicker and got her lie on the cot. Thereafter, said

accused inserted his penis in her vagina. Complainant narrated her

incident to her father-in-law and mother-in-law Vimal. She took

victim at the hospital of Dr. Bedmutha. Dr. Bedmutha examined her

and asked her to take at the hospital of Dr. Sangita Bafna.

Bhagyawant Punde, PA





                                             3/25                           APEAL-475-2001.doc

Therefore, she took her at the hospital of Dr. Bafna. Dr. Bafna

examined her and admitted her in the hospital. As the mental

condition of the complainant was not proper and health of the

victim girl was not good, the complainant could not inform the

incident to the police station. Complainant lodged the complaint in

the police station on the next date i.e. on 08.03.1997. On that

complaint offence was registered. The victim was taken to the civil

hospital. She was examined by medical offcer. Spot panchnama

was prepared. The accused was arrested. Nicker of victim and the

clothes of the accused person were seized. Statements of the

witnesses were recorded. Seized articles were sent to chemical

analyzer and after completion of investigation chargesheet was

submitted to the court of JMFC, Nashik, who in turn committed the

case to the Court of Sessions.

Charge was framed against the accused to which he

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is of total

denial. After a full fedged trial, the trial Court acquitted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Hence,

this appeal.

4. Learned APP appearing for appellant-State invites

attention of this Court to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

4/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

in particular evidence of Rajashree (PW8), the victim (PW9),

Jaisingh Choudhary (PW5) and Kiran Waichale (PW6), and submits

that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case and in

particular evidence of aforesaid witnesses which gets corroboration

from the medical evidence on record. He invites our attention to the

certifcate given by PW4 at Exhibit-19 dated 10.04.1997 wherein it is

mentioned that the pulse and blood pressure of victim girl was high,

blood on middle portion of thighs, hymen was ruptured and there

was forceful intercourse within 4 to 6 hours. He further invites our

attention to the contents of Exhibit-24 i.e. the certifcate given by

PW7 and PW10 and submits that as mentioned in the said

certifcate that hymeneal ring infamed, hymen swollen, vaginal

examination not possible and there is sign of forceful intercourse

attempted. He further invites our attention to the CA report and

submits that result of analysis shows blood stains on clothes of

victim and accused as well as bedsheet, semen stains and blood

mixed semen stains on victims undergarment and semen stains

also on bedsheet. He submits that the evidence of PW8 and PW9 are

consistent that, there was sexual intercourse. Their version is

corroborated from the medical certifcate at Exhibit-19 and Exhibit-

24. He submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate CA

report, so also the fact that the accused did not explain about blood

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

5/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

stain on his clothes and also evidence of last seen and extra judicial

confession given by the accused.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Shetye assisted by Ms. Priyanka

Chavan, advocates appearing for respondent-accused invites our

attention to the fndings recorded by the trial Court, so also the

written notes of arguments placed on record and submits that the

fndings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the

evidence on record and plausible view has been taken by the trial

Court. It is submitted that once the plausible view has been taken

by the trial Court, there is no reason for the appellate Court to

cause interference in the fndings of acquittal recorded by the trial

Court. In support of aforesaid contention he placed reliance on the

following reported judgments, Ghurey Lal V. State of Uttar Pradesh 1,

Muralidhar & Anr. V. State of Karnataka 2, Ramesh Babulal Doshi V.

State of Gujarat3. He further submits that merely the accused and

victim were found going together, the accused cannot be convicted

only on that ground. In support of said contention, learned counsel

placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of State of

Haryana Vs. Ved Prakash4, Rahim Baig Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 5.

1(2008) 10 SCC 450 2(2014) 5 SCC 730 3(1996) 9 SCC 225 41994 Cri. L.J. 140 5(1972 Cri. LJ 1260)

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

6/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

Therefore, he submits that the appeal fled by the State is devoid of

any merits and same may be dismissed.

6. In order to prove its case the prosecution did examine in

all 11 witnesses. The main witnesses of the prosecution are

Rajashree (PW8), the victim (PW9) and Dr. Bafna (PW4) who

examined the PW9. The other witnesses are panch witnesses.

7. Rajashree (PW8) in her deposition before the Court

stated that she was present in the house on 07.03.1997 along with

her in-laws. At about 6.30 pm her daughter (PW9) came to house.

She told her that she wants to change her nicker. Rajashree (PW8)

saw blood stains on her nicker, thighs and private parts. Therefore,

PW8 asked PW9 that what had happened?. PW9 told PW8 that she

was taken by accused at laundry for giving clothes. Thereafter, she

was taken in the neighbouring wada on second foor. She was made

to sleep on cot and accused removed her nicker, inserted her pipi

i.e. penis in her private part. PW8 informed this fact to her in-laws.

They took PW9 to the hospital of Dr. Bedmutha. Dr. Bedmutha

examined PW9 and asked to take her to Dr. Bafna. Dr. Bedmutha

had telephonic conversation with Dr. Bafna. Dr. Bafna examined

PW9 and admitted her in the hospital. PW8, her father-in-law and

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

7/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

her father went to the police station, and lodged the complaint on

08.03.1997.

8. In her cross examination PW8 denied the suggestion that

there were no blood stains on the nicker when PW9 was taken to

the civil hospital. The nicker was given to the police when police

came to the hospital of Dr. Bafna. She went to the police station on

08.03.1997 at about 11.00 to 11.30 am to lodged the complaint. She

stated that before going to the police station she went to the

hospital of Dr. Bafna. Dr Bafna was telling her to lodge the

complaint to the police. It is stated that since her daughter (PW9)

was not feeling well there was delay in lodging the complaint. She

further stated that the accused is residing in their house at the

upper foor. She did not visit the spot of incident after narration of

the alleged incident by PW9. She further stated that one person was

taking classes in her house (wada), but she does not know his name

was Mr. Deore. She further stated that mother of accused is cousin

sister of father-in-law i.e. Dwarkanath. The mother of accused is

suffering from polio. On the date of incident, accused, his

handicapped mother and others were residing in their house (wada).

It appears that the defence gave suggestion during the recording of

evidence about whether rent from the accused is recovered or not.

Bhagyawant Punde, PA





                                                8/25                              APEAL-475-2001.doc

She stated that she does not know about recovery of rent from the

accused. She further deposed that, she does not know that one

Mr. Deore had fled criminal prosecution against her husband and

father-in-law. It appears that, during cross examination a

suggestion was given to PW8 that the house members of PW8 are

asking for vacant possession of the premises given on rent to the

accused prior to the said incident. However, she denied the said

suggestion, but admitted that after the alleged incident, accused

went away along with his articles.

9. At the relevant time PW9 was minor, aged about 8 years.

The prosecution examined PW9. It appears that after putting

certain questions to PW9, the trial Court commenced the

examination-in-chief of said witness.

10. PW9 deposed before the Court that she know the

accused. He was residing at the upper foor on their house. Now he

is not residing their. Accused took her at laundry for giving clothes

for press. It was noon time, after giving clothes, she was taken to

the neighbouring house on upper foor by the accused. There was

cot. The accused got her lie on the bed. He removed her nicker. He

took out his penis and inserted in her vagina. Thereafter, he

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

9/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

brought her at her house. Accused went to his house. PW9 asked

her mother to give another nicker, so as to change her nicker. There

was blood on her nicker. Her mother took her at the hospital of Dr.

Bedmutha. Thereafter, she was taken to another hospital. She

identifed the nicker. Doctor examined her. The incident was

narrated by her to her mother in the hospital. Again she was taken

to the civil hospital.

11. During her cross examination she stated that there was

one cot on upper foor. The spot of incident is in other lane. She

never went to the spot of incident prior to the said incident. Other

persons were residing in the house in which the incident had

occurred. Her school time was in the morning. On the said date, she

had not been to the school. Said incident took place at the morning

school closing time. She stated that, she asked her mother to give

another nicker at the evening time. She further deposed that it did

not happen that in the meantime from noon to evening she was

playing. She did not take mother or police at the spot of incident.

The police did not make inquiry with her.

12. Upon conjoint reading of deposition of PW8 and PW9,

both of them have not stated about what happened in between the

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

10/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

time of alleged incident and till evening on said date. Secondly, there

was suggestion given by the defence to PW8 that PW8 and her

family members wanted to evict the accused from the house,

therefore, false case has been fled against the accused. There is no

satisfactory explanation given about why, immediately the complaint

was not lodged. In the examination-in-chief PW9 stated that, she

asked her mother to give another nicker to change earlier nicker.

However, at what time she asked her mother to give another nicker

is not clearly brought on record. In the cross examination she stated

that, she asked her mother to give another nicker at the evening

time. She also stated that she did not go to the school on the

relevant date. There appears to be clear doubt about the

prosecution case about time of alleged incident inasmuch as PW9

stated that, the time of incident was at the time of morning school

closing without indicating specifc time.

13. The evidence of both the witnesses needs to be tested in

the light of medical evidence. PW8 in her examination-in-chief

deposed that she took PW9 to the nearest hospital of Dr. Bedmutha.

Dr. Bedmutha examined PW9 and asked PW8 to take her to the

hospital of Dr. Bafna. It is the contention of PW8 that Dr. Bedmutha

had talked with Dr. Bafna on telephone, then she along with PW9

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

11/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

went to the hospital of Dr. Bafna, and she examined her and

admitted in the hospital, and thereafter, she along with her father-

in-law went to the police station and lodged the complaint. At this

juncture it would be appropriate to discuss the evidence of Dr.

Bedmutha (PW1), to whom PW9 was taken by PW8 to the hospital of

PW1, for medical examination/checkup. Dr. Bedmutha was

examined as PW1 by the prosecution. He deposed before the Court

that one Dwarkanath Joshi and his family are residing near his

hospital. On 07.03.1997, at evening time, Dwarkanath and PW8

along with PW9 came to his hospital. PW8 is the daughter-in-law of

Dwarkanath. They informed him to examine PW9 medically. They

told that accused committed rape on her. He (PW1) saw blood on

vagina of the girl and advised them to go to the civil hospital. He

saw blood on both thighs and underwear. He also advised to show

her to child specialist. He issued a chit in the name of Dr. Sangita

Bafna. The said chit is placed on Court record. He admits the

contents of said chit at Exhibit-12.

14. In his cross examination he stated that in his chit at

Exhibit-12 he has not mentioned about blood on thighs and

underwear and also on vagina of PW9. He has also not mentioned

the name of hospital in the said chit. He has not maintained any

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

12/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

record about the examination of PW9. Surprisingly, he deposed that

he has not examined the said girl. He further stated that he has not

seen any injury on the person of said girl.

15. As already observed he was frst doctor to whom PW9

(victim) was taken by PW8 and her father-in-law. We have carefully

perused the contents of Exhibit-12 i.e. the chit written by PW1 to

Dr. Bafna wherein nothing has been mentioned about the blood on

thighs and underwear and vagina of PW9. Neither, name of the

hospital is written on the said chit. PW1 has completely demolished

the prosecution case by deposing that he has not examined the PW9

(victim) and further he has not seen any injury on the person of

PW9.

16. The prosecution has examined Dr. Bafna. In her

deposition before the Court she stated that on 07.03.1997 at about

7.30 pm when she was present in her hospital at that time one

Joshi, his wife, his daughter-in-law brought one girl in her hospital.

They brought one letter from Dr. Bedmutha. She denied the

contents of said letter at Exhibit-12 before the Court. She stated

that the said letter was given by her to police. She stated that the

age of the girl was around 5 to 7 years. She was seen in frightened

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

13/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

condition. Parents told Dr. Bafna the history about the mischief

happened with the said girl, and requested her to examine PW9.

Further, PW4 told PW8 and her relatives that it is not her feld and

advised the relatives of PW9 to taker her to the Gynecologist in civil

hospital. However, relatives insisted Dr. Bafna to examine the PW9,

and she agreed to examine her on humanitarian ground. She told

the relatives of PW9 to inform the police about the said incident.

However, relatives insisted not to inform the said incident to the

police. They told her that they will take decision to inform the police

after arrival of their relatives. Thereafter, PW4 examined PW9 and

admitted her in the hospital. PW9 was in the hospital till the next

day. She stated that her pulse and blood pressure was high. On

local examination middle portion of thighs were blood stained. Her

nicker was also blood stained and her hymen was ruptured.

According to her opinion on examination of PW9, she stated that

rape might have been attempted within 4 to 6 hours, and

accordingly she issued certifcate signed by her which is at Exhibit-

19 in the notes of evidence.

17. PW4 was extensively cross examined by the defence.

During her cross examination she stated that the PW9 was

discharged at about 11.30 to 12 pm on the next day. She did not

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

14/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

remember whether the police came in the hospital when the girl was

admitted in the hospital on 08.03.1997. She gave information to the

police. Police came to her hospital. She further stated that now she

does not remember the exact date. She deposed that the police

recorded her statement and on that date only she supplied all the

information to the police. Her statement was recorded on

10.04.1997. After going through the police statement, she stated

that on 08.03.1997 police came in her hospital and thereafter, she

discharged the said girl. She stated that police came in the hospital

in the morning time on 08.03.1997. On said date police made

inquiry with her. Police reduced the said information given by PW4

into writing. During her cross examination she further admitted

that injury and infammation are two different things and she has

not done per-vagina test and he has seen it only externally.

Upon perusal of deposition of PW4, her evidence does

not inspire confdence inasmuch as when she deposed that the

police visited her hospital on 08.03.1997, there was no reason for

the police to record her statement on 10.04.1997. At the earliest i.e.

on 08.03.1997 the statement of PW4 ought to have been recorded by

the police. The delay in recording the statement of PW4 by the

police, certainly creates doubt about the credibility of her evidence

before the Court.

Bhagyawant Punde, PA





                                         15/25                     APEAL-475-2001.doc

18. The prosecution further examined Dr. Sidharth Shelke

(PW7). He deposed before the Court that at the relevant time he was

working as a medical offcer in civil hospital, Nashik. On 08.03.1997

he was on duty as casualty medical offcer from 9.00 am to 9.00

pm. Police produced PW9 along with police memo for medical

examination. He examined PW9 at about 8.10 pm on 08.03.1997. At

the relevant time she was aged about 5 years. He further deposed

that there was history of alleged rape. However, general behaviour of

said girl was normal. Weight of PW9 at the relevant time was 15 kg.

Body built was good. Teeth were normal. Hairs not developed and

general features were not developed.

He further deposed that on the same date accused was

produced for medical examination along with covering letter at

Exhibit-25. He examined the accused. He stated that his general

behaviour was normal. He did not notice any injury on the body of

accused. He collected samples of semen, blood, pubic hair, and nail

clippings for chemical analysis.

19. During his cross examination he stated that there is

possibility of injury on the penis if there is forceful attempt of rape

on the child aged about 5 years. However, he did not fnd any injury

on the penis or on the private parts of the accused. He further

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

16/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

stated that minor injuries are possible on the person of prosecutrix

if there is forceful rape on the girl aged about 5 years. Injuries on

private part are possible and externally noticeable if there is forceful

rape on a girl aged about 5 years. He stated that he did not notice

any external injury on the person of PW9. He used to examined

children. Due to disease or infection, infammation is possible.

Infection is possible in small girl due to unhygenic condition

particularly school going girl.

20. The evidence of PW7 unequivocally indicates that, there

was no injury on the person of accused or there was no other injury

on the body of accused. If the prosecution case is to be believed, in

that case if the accused had forceful sexual assault on PW9, then

some injuries ought to have been appeared on her penis or private

parts. However, PW7 in clear words stated that, no such injuries on

the person of accused were found during his medical examination.

He has also stated that infammation is possible in school going

girls due to unhygienic condition. He did not stated in his evidence

about any injuries on thighs, vagina of PW9.

21. We have carefully perused the contents of Exhibit-24 and

found that there is nothing to indicate that PW7 noticed any

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

17/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

substantial sign on medical examination of PW9, to support the

case of the prosecution that accused had made attempt of forceful

rape on PW9. On the contrary, it appears that PW7 examined the

accused and did not fnd any injury on his penis or any other injury

on his body.

22. It appears that the prosecution further examined Dr.

Kawade as (PW10), who was serving as Medical Offcer, Civil

Hospital, Nashik at the relevant time. She stated that she examined

PW9 gynecologically and found that on examination of genitals libia

was infamed, hymeneal ring was infamed, hymnal was swollen.

Vaginal examination was not possible because of infammation.

Vaginal smear was taken only from outside, because of high

infammation it was not possible to take smear from inside. In her

opinion forceful intercourse has been attempted, within 24 hours.

Accordingly, she prepared certifcate at Exhibit-24. However, in her

cross examination she stated that she had not seen hymen was

ruptured. She stated that hymen was intact. Swelling and

infammation are two different terms. In her certifcate swelling is

not mentioned. She admitted that separate notes about examination

of PW9 were not taken. She further stated that in her certifcate she

did not mention that vaginal smear was taken from outside. Her

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

18/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

attention was invited to the contents of certifcate wherein she had

written word might have been attempted, in reply she stated that it

is probability of attempt only.

23. If the evidence of all the doctors/medical offcers is

compared with each other and read in its entirety, it does not inspire

confdence and said evidence is not useful to corroborate the version

of PW8 and PW9. At the cost of repetition the evidence of doctors is

contradictory and the frst doctor i.e. Dr. Bedmutha to whom PW8

and her family members had approached has completely

demolished the prosecution case by stating in his cross examination

that he did not notice any blood stain or injury on examination of

PW9. There is nothing to suggest that PW1 was declared hostile.

When PW8 took PW9 to PW1 there was no reason to PW8 to not to

inform the police the said incident. In fact such incident which had

taken place as per the prosecution case in the house where other

persons are residing, there was no reason to wait for lodging the

complaint till the next date. Natural reaction of mother of PW9 and

family members would have been to immediately lodged the

complaint with the police upon narration of said incident by PW9.

Bhagyawant Punde, PA





                                         19/25                       APEAL-475-2001.doc

24. We have also seen the evidence of laundry owner wherein

he has only stated that accused and PW9 came to his laundry.

However, it appears that the police recorded his statement belatedly

on 11.03.1997 i.e. 4 to 5 days after the alleged incident had taken

place. Importantly, the statement of Dr. Bafna to whom PW9 was

taken by PW8 on the advise of PW1 was recorded by the police on

10.04.1997. It is clear that her statement was recorded after one

month of alleged incident.

25. The prosecution had examined Bhalchandra Deokute

(PW3) who was the panch for the seizure of clothes of accused. He

deposed before the Court that he did not seen the accused in the

police station. He was told about seizure of clothes of the accused.

One Shirt, one pant and underwear was shown to him. Police

prepared and he signed on it. Other panch Satish also signed on the

said panchnama. He admits in his cross examination that he did

not put any mark on the clothes. The article shown to him before

the Court did not bear any mark put by him. He has not seen any

injury on the person of accused, since he has not seen the accused

at the time of panchnama. He further deposed that the seized

clothes are in the possession of police. Therefore, it is clear from his

deposition that the accused was not present in the police station

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

20/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

and his clothes were seized by the police and only the clothes were

shown to PW3. It appears that necessary procedure for seizure of

clothes of the accused was not followed by the police. There is also

discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses about how

many cots were there at the place of incident. It has also come in

the evidence of PW8 that at the relevant time mother of accused was

suffering from 'polio' and she was not in a position to walk. The

certifcate at Exhibit-26 mentions that 'Smegma present'. The

presence of smegma upon examination of penis of accused is one of

the sign that, he might have not committed forceful intercourse in

view of 'smegma' was present on his penis. Otherwise in case of

forceful intercourse, smegma would not have been present on the

private part of the accused.

26. To sum up, it is admitted in the cross examination by

PW8 that, when the police made inquiry about the incident with the

PW9, she did not narrate the incident to the police in the hospital of

Dr. Bafna and thereafter there was no inquiry made by the police

with the prosecutirx. PW8 also admitted in the cross examination

that she did not visit the spot/room wherein the alleged incident

had taken place and further the mother of the accused at the

relevant time was suffering from polio and she is cousin of father-in-

Bhagyawant Punde, PA





                                                  21/25                           APEAL-475-2001.doc

law of PW8. Though, she has denied the suggestion that her family

members asked for vacant possession from the accused,

nevertheless the said question was asked by the defence in her

cross examination. In the natural course PW9 (victim) ought to have

shown spot of incident to PW8, and PW9 ought to have visited the

said spot of incident. Importantly, the prosecution has not examined

father-in-law, who was accompanying PW8 and PW9 at the relevant

time in the hospitals and was present at the time of fling complaint

with the police.

27. As already observed Dr. Bedmutha (PW1) had admitted

in the cross examination that, in his chit at Exhibit-12 he has not

mentioned about the blood stains on thighs, underwear or vagina,

nor the history and he has not maintained record of examination of

PW9, and further he did not examined the PW9. He further stated

that he had not seen any injury on the person of PW9. Dr. Bafna

(PW4) stated in her cross examination that, she is unable to

remember when the police came in the hospital when the girl was

admitted. She further stated that she gave information to the police

on 08.03.1997 and the police came to her hospital, then she does

not remember the exact date, and she stated that when her

statement was recorded on that day she supplied all the information

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

22/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

to the police. However, she stated that her statement was recorded

on 10.04.1997, and after going through the statement she stated

that on 08.03.1997 police came in the hospital and, thereafter, she

discharged the PW9. It is surprising to note that when the police

visited the hospital of PW4 on 08.03.1997 there was no reason for

the police for not recording her statement on that day, and recording

her statement belatedly on 10.04.1997 i.e. after about a month from

the date of incident creates serious doubt about credibility of the

prosecution case. Upon careful perusal of certifcate issued by him

at Exhibit-19 it is crystal clear that the said certifcate is dated

10.04.1997. In her cross examination she stated that injury and

infammation are two different things and she had not done per-

vagina test. She had only seen it externally. So far, Dr. Shelke (PW7)

is concerned, he deposed that he found general behaviour of PW9

normal during medical examination. The medical certifcate of

prosecutrix at Exhibit-24 shows that the medical examination was

done at 8.30 pm and medical examination of accused (Exhibit-26)

shows that the accused was examined at 6.10 pm.

28. Jaisingh Choudhary (PW5) in his examination-in-chief

stated that on 07.03.1997 the accused and the prosecutrix came to

the laundry at 6.30 pm and during cross examination he stated

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

23/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

that on the same date at about 7.30 the police came to the laundry

and made inquiry with him and recorded his statement and the

accused was with the police when they came to his laundry. When

the complaint itself was lodged on 07.03.1997, the question of

visiting police to the laundry would not arise. As already observed

the statement of PW5 was recorded on 10.03.1997 i.e. after three

days after the alleged incident.

29. Kiran Walchale (PW6) stated in his deposition that,

accused made extra judicial confession before him. The prosecution

has utterly failed to prove the credibility of such extra judicial

confessions made by the accused before PW6. It is abundantly clear

from evidence of PW6 that his relation was not such that the

accused could show confdence in him and admit the alleged

incident before him. There was no occasion to make such statement

by the accused before PW6. It appears that statement of PW6 was

recorded belatedly on 11.03.1997. The CA report at Exhibit-34 in

relation to the fve sealed parcels contains articles which were

collected on 08.03.1997 vide panchnama at Exhibits- 13, 15 and 17.

Article-5 (bedsheet) seized under spot panchnama (Exhibit-3) did

not show any stains. It appears from the CA report that the report

at Exhibit-24 i.e. the prosecutirx medical certifcate shows that the

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

24/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

results are inconclusive.

30. On the whole, it appears that the entire chain of

biological evidence from the point of seizure, collection of samples,

its preservation, deposition and preservation in FSL and till the

time it reaches in the hand of analyst has not been proved beyond a

reasonable doubt by unimpeachable evidence.

31. The accused in his statement recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C, brought on record that since last 5-6 years, they i.e.

complainant's family started giving trouble, and was demanding

vacant possession and that they were saying that they will remove

accused from the house in any condition.

32. We have discussed the entire evidence brought on record

by the prosecution so as to fnd out whether the fndings recorded

by the trial Court and conclusion reached is in consonance with the

evidence on record or the fndings are perverse. We are of the view

that the fndings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with

the evidence brought on record and there is no perversity as such.

The trial Court has taken a possible view on the basis of evidence

on record, and therefore, there is no reason for this Court to cause

Bhagyawant Punde, PA

25/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc

interference in the fndings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court,

in the year 2000.

33. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the

appeal fled by the appellant-State is devoid of any merits and same

deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

( S. P. TAVADE, J.)                                 (S. S. SHINDE, J.)




Bhagyawant Punde, PA