Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vijay Ramesh Taral And Others on 2 January, 2024
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:15-DB
5-ALS-149-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 149 OF 2019
State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Vijay Ramesh Taral
2. Ramdhan Pundlik Taral
3. Samadhan Govind Kale
4. Gajanan Bhagwan Taral ..RESPONDENTS
....
Ms. U.S. Bhosale, A.P.P. for applicant - State
....
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ
DATE : 02nd JANUARY, 2024
PER COURT :
1. We have heard learned A.P.P. at length and also perused the
evidence of victim.
2. The incident took place on 25th May, 2014. The victim was
emotionally involved with P.W.2 - Jitendra. Both had decided to visit
Aamsari at village Fardapur for devdarshan. The victim, therefore, went to
Fardapur. Jitendra came there by 09:30 a.m. She joined him. Then both of
them went to Aamsari to take devdarshan in a temple on the hill. It is further
her case that Jitendra went aside to answer nature's call. Four unknown
persons (respondents) came to the victim and enquired about her identity
5-ALS-149-19.odt
and whether she was married. Those four claimed to be the officers of Forest
Department. They also threatened her of making their affair public. She,
therefore, went to Jitendra. The respondents (accused) followed them. They
threatened and beat them up. Thereafter, all the four committed rape of the
victim and recorded video in the mobile.
3. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on the ground of there
being delay of a month in lodging of the F.I.R. The explanation for the delay
is said to be the victim and Jitendra to have been threatened by the
respondents. The alleged video of the victim and Jitendra to have been
together was not placed before the trial Court. The reasons given for
acquittal find place in paragraph no. 26 of the judgment of the trial Court.
Same is reproduced as below :-
"26. It is pertinent to note that the victim had given the
description of accused persons at the time of lodging report after
one month of the incident. Till that time, she had not lodged
report against accused persons nor Jitendra lodged report. Her
evidence shows that she lodged report after 15 days when she
came to know about her video clip. Thereafter discussion was
held in her family to lodge report against accused persons.
However, she had not seen video clip personally neither P.W.2
Jitendra had seen it. Victim had gone with P.W.2 Jitendra to
Aamsari without informing her family. The evidence further
shows that when she visited Aamsari there was fair and the people
from different villages were present near the temple. It appears
5-ALS-149-19.odt
that after the incident, victim went to her sister's house but did
not disclose the incident to her sister. On next day, she returned
her house. Thereafter also she did not disclose the incident to her
mother or other near relatives. Her evidence shows that 8 days
after the incident Dnyneshwar visited her house and informed her
parents about video shooting in respect of the victim. Her parents
convinced her, when she disclosed the incident to her parents.
Thus, the evidence shows that after 8 days of the incident victim
came to know that video clip about incident was viral."
4. We are in agreement with the aforesaid reasons for acquitting the
respondents herein. We, therefore, do not find it a fit case to grant the State
leave to appeal. In view of the same, application stands dismissed.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) ( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )
SSD
