Bombay High Court
Sheikh Ibrahim Sheikh Karim vs State Of Mah. Thr. The Officer In Charge ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:12320-DB
-1- CRI APP 31 21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.31 OF 2021
APPELLANT : Sheikh Ibrahim Sheikh Karim,
(In Jail) Aged 45 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o, Kosara, Tah. Pauni,
District: Bhandara
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT : The State of Maharashtra,
Through the officer in charge,
Adyal Police Station, Tah, Pauni,
District : Bhandara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Amit Kukday, Advocate (appointed) for the appellant.
Mr. K.R. Lule, APP for the respondent/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
RAJ D. WAKODE J, J.
Date of reserving judgement : 11.11.2025
Date of pronouncing judgment : 18.11.2025
JUDGMENT ( Per Raj D. Wakode, J.)
1. The present appellant has approached this Court by way of
present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By
virtue of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment
-2- CRI APP 31 21.odt
dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Bhandara in
Sessions Trial No.03/2017 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted
the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(1)(2)
(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.') and sentenced him
to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned Sessions
Judge has further convicted the present appellant of the offence punishable
under Section 506 (II) of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The facts of the present case in brief are as under :
The appellant is the father of the victim girl/PW-2. PW-1
informant is the wife of the appellant. As per the prosecution, the
appellant, original accused, on the fateful day of 10.10.2016 at about 1.30
p.m. when the PW-1 mother of the victim was not at home, committed
rape upon the PW-2. The details of the commission of the aforesaid
offence are given specifically by the PW-2 in her deposition which were
unshattered in her cross-examination also. The aforesaid allegations of
PW-2 were corroborated by her mother PW-1 who had lodged the oral
-3- CRI APP 31 21.odt
report with the respondent on 12.10.2016. The respondent registered First
Information Report No.0057/2016 on 12.10.2016 for the offences
punishable under Sections 376(1)(2)(f) and 506 of the I.P.C. The
Investigating Officer-PW-8 conducted the investigation wherein he
recorded the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, visited the spot, prepared the
spot panchanama. Seized the bedsheet, clothes of the victim & the accused
and prepared seizure panchanama thereof in presence of the panchas. On
the requisition of the PW-8, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni
recorded the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. The medical examination of the PW-2/victim was conducted at
the hands of PW-6 (Dr. Meera Sonawane) and PW-7 (Dr. Megha Davile);
whereas, the medical examination of the present appellant was conducted
at the hands of PW-5 (Dr. Suyog Kamble). Accordingly, the medical
examination reports were collected by the Investigating Officer and after
concluding his investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the present
appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni for the
aforesaid offences. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pauni
committed the aforesaid case to the Court of Sessions.
The learned Sessions Court framed the charge on 30.01.2017
at Exh. 4 and recorded the plea of the present appellant/accused wherein
-4- CRI APP 31 21.odt
the present appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Accordingly, the aforesaid session case was conducted by the learned trial
Court wherein the prosecution had examined in all eight witnesses to bring
home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution relied upon various
documentary evidence which are enumerated alongwith their exhibit
numbers by the learned trial Court in paragraph 5 of the impugned
judgment. After the conclusion of the evidence, the learned Sessions
Court recorded statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
vide Exh. 63. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 raised the
defence that the appellant has been falsely implicated. However, he did not
lead any defence evidence.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned
Sessions Court, Bhandara convicted the present appellant vide its
judgment dated 01.09.2018 which is impugned before this Court.
4. We have heard Mr. Amit Kukdey, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. K.R. Lule, learned APP for the respondent/State. We
have gone through the evidence, documents and the impugned judgment.
We will refer the same to the extent if necessary to decide the following
-5- CRI APP 31 21.odt
points that arise for our consideration. We have recorded our findings
thereon for the reasons to follow:-
Sr.No. Particular Findings
(i) Does the prosecution prove that the Yes
accused committed rape on the prosecutrix?
(ii) Does the prosecution further prove that Yes
the accused committed criminal intimidation
by giving threats to the prosecutrix to kill her
with intent to cause alarm to her?
(iii) Whether interference is called for in the impugned No
judgment ?
(iv) What order ? Appeal Dismissed
REASONS
As to point Nos. (i) to (iii)
5. Mr. Amit Kukdey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that
the present appellant was working as a labour and on the day of incidence, for
the entire day he was in the field of Dr. Nakhate and doing work of spraying
pesticides on the paddy crop. He further argued that the present appellant
has been falsely implicated in the present case by PW-1, his wife only to
throw him out of his house. Mr. Kukdey, learned counsel pointed out the
medico legal report at Exh.26 wherein it was recorded that there was no
external injuries present on the body of the victim. So also he invited our
attention to the C.A. report at Exhs. 21 to 24 wherein it was opined that
semen was not detected on the clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused.
On the basis of the aforesaid material, Mr. Kukdey argued that
-6- CRI APP 31 21.odt
the learned Sessions Court was not at all justified in convicting the present
appellant for the severe offence of rape upon his daughter and hence
prayed for the acquittal of the present appellant.
6. Mr. K.R. Lule, learned APP vehemently argued and justified
the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Court. He pointed the
various medical reports including the confidential report at Exh. 27 and
forensic medical examination report at Exh 47 which clearly pointed out
the sexual assault on the prosecutrix. He also led us through the evidence
of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 (prosecutrix) who in clear terms pointed
out the guilt of the accused through their testimonies and which was not
shaken in the cross-examination. In the end, Mr. Lule, learned APP
referred to the evidence of various doctors who had unequivocally referred
to the sexual assault on the prosecutrix recorded by them in the medical
reports and hence prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
7. We have perused the evidence of PW-5 Dr. Suyog Kamble,
who had examined present appellant while he was on duty as a Medical
Officer in Rural Hospital, at Adyal. He has specifically deposed that after
having examined the present appellant he found that accused was fit to
-7- CRI APP 31 21.odt
have sexual intercourse and accordingly he has given the query report and
filled form B which are at Exhs. 39 and Exh.40. The aforesaid finding of
PW-5 could not be challenged by the appellant in his cross-examination.
The evidence of PW-6 Dr. Meera Sonwane who was the first medical
officer who examined the present prosecutrix on 12.10.2016 while on
duty as Casaulty Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhandara. PW-6
during her examination-in-chief had in clear terms deposed that during
the examination of the presecutrix she found that her hymen was torn. She
also further deposed that during her vaginal examination index finger
insertion was very painful and accordingly, she has given confidential
report at Exh.27. PW-6 also specifically denied the suggestion in her cross-
examination that the aforesaid internal injury mentioned in the
confidential report can be caused by cycling, running or if the girl did
heavy labour work.
8. PW-7 Dr. Megha Davile who is working as Assistant Professor
in Gynecology Department in Government Medical College and Hospital,
Nagpur had conducted the gynecology examination of the prosecutrix
and deposed that on genital examination of the prosecutrix, she found that
her hymen was torn. There was evidence of bleeding present in vagina.
-8- CRI APP 31 21.odt
Edges of the hymen were irregular. There was no edema and tears were
present at 2.00 O' clock and 5:00 O' clock position. She further said
accordingly she issued Forensic Medical Examination report of the victim,
which is at Exh.47. PW-7 specifically denied the suggestion that the
aforesaid injuries can be caused by sports, cycling or field work.
9. Perusal of the evidence of aforesaid medical officers who had
conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix during discharging
of their official duties clearly points out that there was a sexual assault on
the prosecutrix. The evidence of PW-5 Dr. Suyog Kamble has clarified
that the accused was fit to have a sexual intercourse. The perusal of the
medico legal certificate at Exh.26, the confidential report at Exh.27 and
Forensic Medical Examination Report at Exh.47 clearly points out that the
prosecutrix had suffered sexual assault. Now the question is who has
committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The Hon'ble Apex Court had
time and again reiterated the principle that the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix of a rape case is sufficient to base the conviction as the
testimony of prosecutrix stands on higher pedestal than the injured
witness. In the present case, the prosecutrix is PW-2. Perusal of her
evidence clearly points out the guilt of the present appellant. PW-2 in her
-9- CRI APP 31 21.odt
examination-in-chief has described in detail as to how the appellant, her
biological father, had committed rape upon her in absence of her mother.
PW-2 in her cross-examination had clearly denied the suggestions given by
the counsel for the appellant as to his false implication at the behest of her
mother and for receiving the compensation. The entire cross-examination
of the PW-2 could not shatter her evidence. In fact the perusal of the
evidence of PW-2 points out that the offence was committed on
10.10.2016 and her evidence was recorded on 16.03.2018. However, even
after passage of two years the prosecutrix was crying through-out her
evidence. The learned Sessions Court has recorded that the PW-2 was
crying while narrating the incident of commission of rape upon her by her
father and also she cried while she narrated about criminal intimidation by
her father for not disclosing the incident to anybody. Similarly during her
cross-examination when the prosecutrix was given suggestion that her
father has not committed rape upon her, she cried and stated that why she
would get herself defamed and why she would level allegation against her
father if really such incident has not occurred. Similarly when the
suggestion was given to her that she had lodged false report against her
father only to receive compensation, the prosecutrix while crying said that
for money she did not lodge report against her own father. Such disturbed
-10- CRI APP 31 21.odt
mind set of PW-2 even after the passage of two years speaks volumes about
the agony of the prosecutrix suffered and is sufficient to believe her
testimony that the original accused/appellant has committed rape upon his
daughter. The evidence of PW-2 is substantiated by her mother PW-1
who also narrated in detail the sequence of events regarding the
involvement of the present accused. PW-1 also specifically denied the
suggestion that she has falsely lodged the complaint against present
appellant. Thus, in view of the above medical evidence so also the
testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 we have no hesitation to hold that the
learned Sessions Court was completely justified in reaching to the
conclusion that the appellant is guilty of offence of committing rape upon
his daughter PW-2.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kukdey had strenuously
argued that PW-2 has specifically admitted in her cross-examination that
her father does labour work and on the day of incident her father had
went to the field of Dr. Nakhate for spraying pesticides and thus, he tried
to substantiate that the appellant was not at home at the time of incidence
and was in the field of Dr. Nakhate for spraying pesticides. It is worth to
mention that aforesaid defence does not find place in the statement under
-11- CRI APP 31 21.odt
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the present appellant. Also the appellant has not
led evidence in support of the aforesaid defence by examining Dr. Nakhate
or any other labour who has worked with the present appellant in the field
of Dr.Nakhate as defence witness and hence the aforesaid argument
without any basis cannot be accepted.
11. So far as the ground raised by the present appellant is to the
absence of external injuries on the body of PW-2 as recorded in the medico
legal certificate at Exh.26 is concerned, it is useful to point out the
evidence of PW-6 Dr. Meera Sonwane who has specifically deposed that
due to the growing age of the victim, the minor and superficial injuries can
be disappeared if the victim was examined after 48 hours of the incident
like nail pricks. In the present case, the incidence is of 10.10.2016 and the
prosecutrix was examined on 12.10.2016 and thus, the aforesaid possibility
as deposed by PW-6 cannot be ruled out.
12. The observation of learned Sessions Court who had an
opportunity to observe the prosecutrix, so also the accused during the
course of evidence is also sufficient to rule out the aforesaid argument of
absence of external injuries which is as follows, "This Court has an
-12- CRI APP 31 21.odt
occasion to see the prosecutrix at the time of recording her evidence. It is
necessary to state that she is a short and little weak girl. On the other
hand, the accused is strong and stout. Therefore, it was quite possible that
she tried to resist him but, she could not succeed in her act of resistance.
This is one aspect. The another aspect, which can not be brushed aside, if
is brought on record in the evidence of PW.2 that the accused pressed her
mouth and gave threats to kill her in case if, she shouts or discloses the said
incident to anybody. It is therefore, quite possible that under the fear she
might not have resisted him or acted as per the dictation of the accused." In
view of the above findings of the learned Sessions Court, the argument led
by the learned counsel for the appellant looses its force and is accordingly
rejected.
13. During the course of the trial the appellant/ original accused
has adopted various defences. One such defence is that the hymen was
torn due to sports, cycling or field work and thus injuries were mentioned
in the forensic report Exh.47. The aforesaid defence as raised by the
present appellant has been clearly brushed aside by the expert witnesses.
PW-6 and PW-7 who had specifically denied such suggestion that the
injuries mentioned in the medico legal reports can be caused by sports,
-13- CRI APP 31 21.odt
cycling or field work. The specific evidence of Dr. Meera Sonwane that
there was an internal injury in the vagina of the prosecutrix because of
which she did not allow even insertion of finger while examination is
sufficient to hold that there was forceful penetration during the course of
rape at the hands of present appellant and hence such defence is only
recorded for the purpose of rejection. So far as the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that as per the chemical analyzers reports at
Exh.21 to 24 the presence of semen was not detected on the clothes of the
presecutrix and the accused and this fact clearly substantiated that the
appellant has been falsely implicated, it is worth to mention here that the
incident took place on 10.10.2016 and the clothes were seized on
13.10.2016 i.e. after gap of three days and it is quite possible that in the
meantime the aforesaid clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were
washed before the same were handed over to the police and therefore, the
possibility of noticing any semen stains or blood stains on the clothes of
the prosecutrix or the accused does not arise and hence the absence of such
stains of semen on the clothes, in our opinion, is not fatal the prosecution
case.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the voluminous
-14- CRI APP 31 21.odt
evidence on record, both oral and documentary, we are of the considered
opinion that learned Sessions Court was completely justified in convicting
the present appellant for the offence of rape and criminal intimidation and
sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment
dated 01.09.2018. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered in
affirmative and point No.(iii) in the negative.
As to point No.(iv)
15. Having considered point Nos.(i) to (iii) in the manner above,
the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed.
16. The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified and paid as
per Rules.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/11/2025 20:41:54
