Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Udhav Sahebrao Roman on 12 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30926-DB
(1)
criappeal-240.2004.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.240 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Through Chakalamba Police
Station, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed Appellant
Versus
Udhav Sahebrao Roman
Age : 25 yrs, occ : Anandwadi,
R/o Shirur, District Beed. Respondent
...
Mr. N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for appellant/State.
Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for the respondent.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATED : 12 NOVEMBER 2025
Judgment (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. The appellant/State has challenged the judgment
and order dated 29.11.2003 passed by learned 3 rd Adhoc
Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed i.e. the learned trial Judge in
Sessions Case No.168 of 2002, thereby acquitting the present
respondent/accused from the offence punishable under
Sections 376, 323 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, "I.P.C.").
2. As per the prosecution case, the informant
prosecutrix on 17.09.2022 in the early morning lodged
criappeal-240.2004.odt
complaint in Chakklamba police station, Taluka Georai,
District Beed by making allegations against the respondent
that on 06.09.2002 at about 8.00 a.m. her husband Bapurao
went to the field for harvesting Bajra crop. Her son Shriram
had gone to school and she was at home with her mother in
law who was blind. Her neighbours were also in their
respective fields for agricultural work. At about 1'O clock she
went in the house for bringing Nirma powder and at that time
she was having her daughter of tender age. When she came
out of the house with Nirma powder and daughter, the
respondent/accused, who was also her nephew, came there
and insisted her to commit sexual intercourse with him on
payment of Rs. 10/-. He then caught her hand and forcibly
dragged her. At that time daughter of prosecutrix fell down.
The respondent/accused threatened her for not to shout and
then dragged her in his house. He then removed his
underwear and pant and petticoat of prosecutrix. Thereafter
pressing her neck, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse
with her. Though she tried to shout, but could not, because
her throat was pressed by the accused. She sustained neck
injuries and abrasion on both the elbows during the incident.
When her blind mother in law reached there after hearing her
shouts, by that time the respondent/accused had already
criappeal-240.2004.odt
completed the alleged act of rape. The respondent/accused
even kicked mother in law of the prosecutrix and fled from the
spot. Thereafter villagers came there alongwith Police Patil to
whom she narrated the incident. Thereafter when her
husband reached there, the prosecutrix told him about the
act of respondent/accused and then the incident was
reported to concerned police station wherein Crime No.
76/2002 under Sections 376, 323 and 506 (2) of I.P.C. was
registered on the report lodged by the prosecutrix.
3. After completion of investigation, the respondent/
accused was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.
Learned trial Judge conducted the trial by examining in all
ten witnesses. But ultimately he acquitted the respondent/
accused of the aforesaid charges. Feeling dissatisfied with
such acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant/State submits
that the prosecution has given true account of the criminal
act performed by the accused. Moreover, mother in law of the
victim has also stated against the accused. The Medical
Officer had in fact opined after examination of prosecutrix
that there was act of sexual intercourse with her. Thus, the
learned A.P.P. submits that despite such evidence from the
criappeal-240.2004.odt
prosecutrix, the learned trial Judge erroneously disbelieved
the same. Thus, he prayed for reversal of acquittal of
respondent/accused into conviction under the aforesaid
offence.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for
respondent /accused strongly opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant and supported the impugned
judgment of acquittal. According to him, though the
prosecutrix deposed according to prosecution story, but in
her cross-examination she has given vital admissions
suggestive of consensual sex. He pointed out that there were
no injuries found on her wrist and back, specially when it was
her contention that the accused dragged her to his house by
holding her wrist when she was lying on the floor on her
back. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of appeal.
6. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the
documents on record alongwith record and proceeding of
Sessions Case No. 168 of 2002.
7. Admittedly, the prosecution has examined in all
ten witnesses. However, to seek conviction of the
respondent/accused, the evidence of prosecutrix i.e. PW-4
and the alleged eye witnesses i.e. PW-5, mother in law of the
criappeal-240.2004.odt
prosecutrix, is of utmost importance. Rest of the evidence is
either on procedural aspect or hearsay in nature. Though the
learned trial Judge has discussed so many aspects as to how
the story of prosecution is unbelievable and not supported by
the evidence of other witnesses since they were having grudge
against the accused and his father, but the evidence of
extreme importance is of the prosecutrix herself.
8. Admittedly, prosecutrix is aunt of respondent/
accused and they resided in same locality at the time of
incident. On going through the chief examination of the
prosecutrix, it is evident that she has narrated as to how
respondent/accused dragged her under the influence of
liquor and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and
that too by giving her inducement of payment of money.
However, it is extremely important to note that she herself
admitted in the cross-examination that she her on own
removed saree from her person and when accused asked her
to lay down, she laid and then he committed sexual
intercourse with her for about half an hour. Not only this,
but she deposed that accused was kissing her during the act
and his hands were on her chest. On giving such admission,
the prosecutrix herself has completely washed out the case of
prosecution. She did not stop there, but further submitted
criappeal-240.2004.odt
that after the incident respondent/accused worn his clothes
and came out of the room and she also came out after
wearing her saree. As such, in the light of such admissions
her case of committing forcible sexual intercourse with her by
the respondent/accused is completely shattered. It even
rendered the evidence of PW-5 i.e. her mother in law who had
stated that she told her about the alleged criminal act of
accused who also kicked her. Admittedly, PW-5 mother in law
is blind with both the eyes and therefore in the light of
admissions given by the proseutrix herself the evidence of her
mother in law has become highly suspicious and doubtful.
9. Apart from that, though the Medical Officer i.e.
PW-8 Dr. Prakash Shivnikar has opined that there was sexual
intercourse with the prosecutrix when he examined her and
also there were injuries on her person specially on neck and
both the elbows, but he has not given final certificate in
respect of those injuries. He has specifically opined that he
did not found injuries on the wrist or back of the patient. It
is the case of prosecutrix that by holding her wrist the
accused dragged her when she was lying on the ground on
her back to his house for committing forcible sexual
intercourse. However, the absence of injuries on her back
and wrist clearly demonstrates that she has deposed falsely.
criappeal-240.2004.odt
Therefore, from the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-4), her
mother in law (PW-5) and Medical Officer (PW-8), it is
established that the incident had not taken place as per the
prosecution story and it can safely be inferred that it was the
case of consensual sexual intercourse.
10. Apart from that, even the scientific evidence is not
supporting to the prosecution since in the C.A. reports no
semen was deducted either on the clothes of
respondent/accused or the prosecutrix and even in her
vaginal swab. Thus, it clearly reflects that the learned trial
Judge, by discussing all the aforesaid aspects, has taken a
possible view and by considering the scope of appeal against
acquittal that cannot be disturbed. The findings of learned
trial Judge are based on proper appreciation of evidence and
therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
same. In the result, appeal stands dismissed.
(Y.G. KHOBRAGADE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde
