Bombay High Court
Govind Munjaba Rudre vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 3 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23611
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
914 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1405 OF 2025
IN APEAL/271/2025
Govind Munjaba Rudre .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Another .. Respondents
.....
Shri. A. L. Kanade, Advocate for the Applicant
Shri. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent No.1 - State.
Ms. Falguni Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (appointed)
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2025
PER COURT :-
. This is the Application for Suspension of Sentence imposed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, Dist.
Beed in Sessions Case No.142/2021 decided on 07.04.2025 convicting
the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(l) and
376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') and sentencing
him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Twenty (20) Years
and fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand), in default to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Months AND to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Twenty (20) Years with fine of
Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand), in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 15 (fifteen) Days, respectively.
2
2. The Prosecution's case, in brief, is as follows:
2.1. The Victim and the Applicant / Appellant are relatives. The Victim
was Intellectually Disabled and was residing with her parents at
Wantakli, Tal. Parli Vaijanath, Dist.Beed. The Mother of the Victim
noticed that the Victim was pregnant. Therefore, the Victim was taken
for medical examination. The Doctor, on medical examination of the
Victim, found her to be pregnant. The Victim told her Mother that the
Applicant Raped her. The Victim's Mother lodged the Report with the
concerned Police Station against the Applicant and Crime bearing
No.196/2021 came to be registered against the Applicant for the
offences punishable under the above referred sections of the I.P.C. On
completion of the investigation, the Applicant came to be
Charge-sheeted. After the full-fledged Trial, the Applicant came to be
convicted by the learned Trial Court by the above referred Judgment
and Order.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that the
Victim was major by age and had studied up to 8 th Std and was able to
understand the things. There are no medical papers to support the case
of the Prosecution that the Victim was Intellectually Disabled. The
evidence on record goes to show that the Psychiatric Assessment Report
prepared by the Prosecution Witness No.8 - Dr. Krushna Balasaheb
3
Kadam was based on the Report prepared by the Clinical Psychologist,
who was admittedly not examined. The evidence of the Victim nowhere
shows that the sexual intercourse was done without her consent. The
evidence on record goes to show that it was the consensual act between
the Applicant and the Victim. The Applicant is aged 23 years and taking
education and was on bail during the Trial. He further submits that the
Appeal would take its own time and therefore, the sentence may be
suspended.
4. It is submitted by the learned APP that there is sufficient evidence
available on record to show that, the Victim was Intellectually Disabled
and was not in a position to give consent. The evidence of PW No.8 -
Dr. Krushna Balasaheb Kadam shows that, the Victim was suffering from
the Mild Mental Retardation and her IQ was found to be 51, whereas the
IQ of normal person ranges from 90 to 110. The patients like the Victim
are unable to assess what will be the consequences of particular act.
The Applicant was related to the Victim and he took disadvantage of the
mental state of the Victim and committed the heinous crime. The
evidence of the Brother of the Victim shows that, the Victim was under
medical treatment for her Intellectual Disability. The learned Trial Court
has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly passed the
impugned Judgment and order and therefore, the Application be
rejected.
4
5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 -
Victim that, the evidence of the Mother and Brother of the Victim shows
that the sexual act which was performed by the Applicant on the Victim
was without her consent. The Victim was not in a position to
understand the things. The case of the Prosecution was well
corroborated and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the Applicant and no case was made out for suspending the
sentence and the Application be rejected.
6. Though the evidence of the Mother and the Brother of the
Victim who were examined as PW Nos.3 and 4, respectively, shows that
the Victim was Intellectually Disabled and she was taking medical
treatment, admittedly there are no medical papers brought on record to
corroborate their evidence that the Victim was suffering from
intellectual disability and receiving treatment. The evidence of the
Investigating Officer shows that, she had not included the medical
treatment papers of the Victim in the Charge-sheet. There is no
corroborative medical evidence to support the Prosecution's case that,
the Victim was suffering from Intellectual Disability and was taking
previous treatment.
5
7. The material evidence in respect of the intellectual disability of
the victim is that of Witness No.8 - Dr. Krushna Balasaheb Kadam, who
was the Class-I Psychiatrist at the Sasoon Hospital, Pune. According to
him, the mental retardation are of the following types i.e. mild
retardation, moderate retardation, severe retardation and profound
retardation. He examined the Victim as she was referred for psychiatric
assessment. The day to day examination and IQ assessment of the
Victim was done and on examination it was revealed that, the Victim
was having mild mental retardation. His further evidence goes to show
that, the IQ test of the Victim was performed by the Clinical
Psychologists. In his cross-examination, he admits that the documents
on the basis of which the Report was prepared, were not before the
Court as the same were not collected by the I.O. Apart from the history
given by the Victim's parents, his Report was based on the I.Q.
assessment made by the Clinical Psychologist, who was not examined by
the Prosecution before the learned Trial Court. He further admits that as
per the World Health Organization guidelines it is advisable to carry out
other intelligent test in addition to the BKT test, though it was not
mandatory according to him.
8. The Clinical Assessment Report prepared by PW8 - Dr. Krushna
Balasaheb Kadam was primarily based on the Clinical Psychologist IQ
test, which was not brought on record. The said Clinical Psychologist
6
was not examined before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, prima facie
the case of the Prosecution in respect of Intellectual Disability of the
Victim does not appear to be well founded. There is no dispute on the
aspect that the Victim was major by age at the relevant time i.e. at the
time of commission of the offence. There is no dispute that, the DNA
Report shows the Applicant as the Biological Father of the foetus. There
is also no dispute that the Applicant and the Victim are distantly related
to each other. The note above the evidence of the Victim, made by the
learned Trial Court shows that, the Victim had properly answered the
Court's questions, therefore, her evidence was recorded. The evidence
of the Victim shows that, she used to sleep in one room and her Mother
used to sleep in other room and the Applicant used to commit sexual
intercourse with her. According to the Victim, the Applicant committed
sexual intercourse with her for 9 to 10 times and therefore, she became
pregnant. However, in her Cross-examination, it has come that since
beginning she used to sleep with her Mother. Though the Mother and
Brother of the Victim deposed of forcible Rape on the Victim by the
Applicant, they are not the eye witness to the Act.
9. In view of the above discussed evidence on record, the
contention of the learned Advocate for the Applicant that, it was the
consensual act between the Victim and the Applicant cannot be brushed
aside lightly. The Applicant was on bail during the Trial. The Appeal is
7
not likely to be heard in the near future. In view of the above, the case
of Suspension of Sentence is made out. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is allowed.
(ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed in Sessions Case
No.142/2021 decided on 07.04.2025 convicting the Applicant for the
offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(l) and 376 (2)(n) of the
I.P.C., is suspended during the pendency of the present Appeal.
(iii) The Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand), with one surety in the like
amount.
(iv) The Applicant shall co-operate in early hearing of the Appeal.
(v) Bail before the Trial Court.
(vi) For this Application, the fees of the learned Advocate
Ms. Falguni Kulkarni appointed to espouse the cause of Respondent
no. 2 - Victim is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand),
which shall be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad.
10. Criminal Application stands disposed off accordingly.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2025 13:39:04
