[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Chand Maheboob Sayyed vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 7 January, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:358
                                                                           908-APEAL-922-25.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 922 OF 2025
                                          WITH
                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3359 OF 2025

          Chand Maheboob Sayyed
          Age: 57 years, Occupation: Labourer,
          Resident of : Manewadi, Taluka Tuljapur,
          District Osmanabad                                      ..APPELLANT

                VERSUS

          1. State of Maharashtra
             Through the Naldurg police Station,
             District Osmanabad.

          2. XYZ                                                  ..RESPONDENTS

                                              ....
          Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant (appointed)
          Ms. A.S. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State
          Ms. Smita Chole, Advocate for respondent no.2 (appointed)
                                              ....

                                                       CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                                       DATE : 07th JANUARY, 2026

          ORAL JUDGMENT :

. At the outset, a word of appreciation is required to be noted for the

able assistance rendered by Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, who is appointed counsel for

the appellant, since without seeking any adjournment he has argued the

matter at length and has vehemently contended that the appeal needs to be

allowed. He has brought to the notice of this Court the grounds, which

according to him are sufficient to seek acquittal of the appellant. The able

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

assistance is also rendered by Ms. Smita Chole, who is appointed and

appearing to represent Respondent No.2 - victim. Learned A.P.P. Ms.

Deshmukh has also vehemently opposed the prayer made by the appellant.

With the able assistance of all these counsel, I have gone through the record

of the case.

2. The brief facts of prosecution case are as under : -

Prosecutrix has lodged F.I.R. of incident. According to her, accused

is her step-father. Her mother married with accused 10 years back. They have

also a son. Accused was yearly agricultural labour in the land of Bhosale. She

was staying withthem in the land of Bhosale at village Shahapur. She was

studying in 12th standard in the College at Naldurg.

3. On 10.01.2022 at about 11.00 a.m. accused went for agricultural

work. Her mother went in the village Shahapur to purchase the grocery

articles. She was alone in the house. Accused came in the house with Axe.

He threatened her to remove the clothes, otherwise he would cause her death.

He has removed her clothes and committed rape on her against her will. He

also threatened not to disclose the incidence anybody, otherwise he would

cause the death of her mother. Then, he left the house and went for providing

water to sugarcane. Her mother returned back at about 1.00 p.m. But

prosecutrix did not disclose the incidence to mother, due to fear. Thereafter,

at about 2.30 p.m. prosecutrix alongwith her mother and younger brother

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

went at village Jewali for the function to see the bridegroom and stayed

there. Then, on 11.01.2022 at about 4.00 p.m. she was suffering pains and

sat alone. Her mother inquired about her silence. Then, she disclosed

incidence of rape committed by accused on her. Thereafter, on 12.01.2022,

prosecutrix alongwith her mother and maternal aunt etc went in the Naldurg

police station and lodged the F.I.R. against the accused for the offence of

rape.

4. On the basis of the information supplied to the non-applicant -

Police Station, Naldurg, Crime No. 16 of 2024 dated 13th January, 2022 was

registered with Naldurg Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad for commission of

offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short, 'I.P.C.'). The date of occurrence of crime mentioned in the

F.I.R. is 10th January, 2022. The victim of sexual act is a daughter, whereas

the accused/appellant is her stepfather. After completion of investigation

final report was filed and learned Sessions Court has framed the charge below

Exhibit 10. As accused did not plead guilty, the guilt was tried to be proved

by examining total 8 witnesses. After weighting testimony of the witnesses,

Additional Sessions Judge, Dharashiv (Osmanabad) in Sessions Case No. 51

of 2022 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under

Section 376(2)(f) and 506 of I.P.C. and directed to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. Default sentence

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

of simple imprisonment for two years for office punishable under Section 376

(2)(f) of I.P.C. was also imposed. The accused was further directed to pay

fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month

for the office punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. The fine amount of Rs.

50,000/- was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix. All throughout the trial,

the accused was in jail.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the story advanced

by the prosecutrix as well as her mother cannot be believed for the reason

that none of the witnesses has specifically deposed about the specific date on

which the incident had taken place. According to him, conspiracy was

hatched by the well-wishers of the mother of the prosecutrix to falsely

implicate the appellant, since the appellant used to doubt the character of

mother of the prosecutrix. He, however submitted that the medical evidence

produced on record is required to be ignored, since the timing of medical

examination from Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 49 clearly shows that the story is

worth ignoring. According to him, the default sentence imposed by the trial

Court is on higher side and should not have been imposed upon him. He

further submits that the prosecutrix was, in fact, prompted to lodge the F.I.R.

by her mother.

6. Per Contra, learned A.P.P. submits that there is absolutely no delay

in lodging the F.I.R. She further submits that there is no reason for the

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was in 12 th standard, to falsely implicate

her stepfather. She contended that inconsistency in the timing of Exhibit 21

and Exhibit 49 will not benefit the accused. Learned counsel appointed to

represent the prosecutrix submitted that the witnesses examined were reliable

and their testimony had, in fact, proved the ingredients of the offences for

which the appellant was charged.

7. I have gone through the record of the case. P.W. 6 is the victim of

the crime, whose testimony is at Page No. 94. In her testimony, she had

stated that at the time of the incidence, she alongwith her mother, brother

and accused was residing in the land of Bhosale at village Shahapur. On 10 th

January, 2022, her mother / P.W.3 went at Bazaar, at which time the

appellant was working in the field and she was alone at the house. She

deposed that her brother was playing out of the house, at which time the

appellant came in the house with an axe and asked her to remove her clothes.

When the prosecutrix inquired the reason, appellant threatened her and asked

her to follow the instructions. Due to fear she removed her clothes and

thereafter according to the prosecutix she was subjected to forcible sexual

intercourse. The prosecutrix further stated that she did not disclose the

incidence to anybody due to fear of the accused.

8. On the next day, she alongwith her mother went at Jewali for the

ceremony to see bridegroom and when after the program she sat alone, her

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

mother and maternal aunt inquired the reason. According to the prosecutrix,

she then disclosed that accused had committed rape on her on the earlier day.

This resulted into lodging of the F.I.R. The complaint is at Exhibit 25.

9. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination, firstly by

P.W.2, who was the Medical Officer at the relevant time at Primary Health

Center, Naldurg. The said witness has stated that on 14 th January, 2022 at

about 5:30 p.m. he started examining the victim, at which time the

prosecutrix narrated history of the incidence and stated that the accused had

committed rape on her. According to P.W.2, during examination the

prosecutrix was referred to the Gynecologist / P.W.8 and the Gynecologist

noticed that the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured in 6 O'clock position.

She also noticed recent (one day to six days) rupture of hymen. According to

her, as per primary opinion, history and medical examination, findings were

suggestive of sexual intercourse. However, final opinion was to be given after

receipt of C.A. report.

10. P.W.8 is the Gynecologist, who was examined by the prosecution.

She was the medical practitioner holding qualification of M.B.B.S. On 14 th

January, 2022 she was working as contractual Medical Officer in Sub-District

Hospital, Tuljapur. She submitted that she examined the prosecutrix and

noticed that there was no injury on her private part. According to her, hymen

was ruptured in 6 O'clock position and redness was also present. She stated

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

that there was possibility of sexual intercourse and she gave her opinion

accordingly, which is at Exhibit 49.

11. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that if the

testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.8 is compared, then the medical evidence will

have to be ignored. The medical evidence is based on two documents.

Exhibit 21 is the first document which is at Page No.60. He states that

according to Exhibit 21, the date and time of arrival of the prosecutrix in the

hospital was 14th January 2022 at 5:30 p.m., whereas as per Exhibit 49 which

is at Page No.131, the date and time of entry of the prosecutrix is 14 th

January, 2022 at 12:35 p.m. and the discharge time was 02:20 p.m. He, thus

submits that initially she was referred to P.W.2 at Primary Health Center,

Naldurg and thereafter to P.W.8 AT Sub-District Hospital, Tuljapur. He

submits that if the prosecutrix was examined on first occasion on 14 th

January, 2022 at 05:30 p.m., then there was absolutely no propriety in

mentioning time of 12:35 p.m. in the second examination conducted at Sub-

District Hospital, Tuljapur. He, therefore, submits that the entire story of

prosecution fails and thus the medical documents cannot be relied upon.

12. At the first blush, the argument advanced by the counsel for the

appellant may seem attractive, but at deeper scrutiny it would be crystal clear

that, in fact, both the medical documents support the case of the prosecution.

The reason is very clear. When P.W.8 was subjected to cross-examination, not

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

a single question was asked by the counsel for the accused/appellant

regarding the date and time of the medical examination. Neither P.W.2 was

referred to Exhibit 21 nor P.W.8 was referred to Exhibit 49. In absence of

effective cross-examination, these two documents cannot be ignored.

13. So far as contention of the appellant that there is absolutely no

material to show that the incidence had taken place on a particular date,

suffice it to say that the prosecutrix is a girl studying in 12 th standard and at

the relevant time was 18 years and 2 months old. In her cross-examination,

more particularly, at Page No.96 Paragraph No.8, she had deposed that "I do

not remember the date, whether 10th or 11th I went at Jewali. I am not aware,

whether Arvind Jagtap has removed my father from work due to our family

dispute. I did not remember whether we all left Shahpur prior to 10th January

for Jewali. It is not true, I am telling 10 th date as per the instructions of

police."

14. At this stage, it is also relevant to consider testimony of the mother

of prosecutrix i.e. P.W.3, who in her testimony, has stated as under :-

"We went the police station on 12.01.2022. It is not true, we were carried

one dress of prosecutrix., while went towards police station. It is true, after

registration of crime, I have produced one dress of prosecutrix before police.

We used to visit police station for initial three days. On the day of F.I.R.,

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

police has recorded my statement. Thereafter, police not recorded my

statement."

15. The testimony of P.W.3/mother and P.W.6/victim if taken into

consideration holistically, it would be crystal clear that there is neither delay

in lodging the F.I.R. nor any confusion regarding commission of offence. Just

because the prosecutrix did not disclose specific date, it does not mean that

her version is required to be disbelieved. At this stage, it is also necessary to

observe that nothing has been brought on record by defence by examining

any witness that there was any reason to falsely implicate the appellant at the

hands of P.W.6 and P.W.3. Just because a stand is taken that the appellant

had suspected the character of P.W.3, and therefore, a false report was lodged

by P.W.6, it cannot be said that the testimony advanced by P.W.6 is false or

there was attempt of false implication. The Investigating Officer, according to

learned counsel for the appellant, ought to have examined brother of the

prosecutrix, who at the relevant time was playing outside the house i.e. spot

of incident. He may be right in saying so, but fact also remains that a boy,

who was playing outside the house, was the son of the appellant. He, in his

defence, could have summoned the boy for examination. The same is also not

done.

16. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Page No.145), the accused has only stated that on 04 th

908-APEAL-922-25.odt

January, 2022, P.W. 3 and 6 had raised quarrel and thereafter did not reside

with him. He further stated that due to the conspiracy hatched by P.W.3,

P.W.6 and other relatives, he was falsely implicated. Except that nothing has

been brought on record to disbelieve the story of the prosecution.

17. Considering the consistent version advanced by P.W.6/victim and

P.W.3/mother of the victim, by way of testimony and medical evidence in the

form of Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 49 duly proved by P.W.2 and P.W.8, I am of

the opinion that the judgment passed by the trial Court is just and proper, and

therefore, interference is not required in it.

18. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a

fine of Rs.50,000/- is imposed upon the appellant and in default, simple

imprisonment for two years was imposed. According to him, default sentence

of two years is on higher side. I am inclined to reduce the default sentence

for the reason that the appeal has been preferred before this Court by the

appellant through Legal Aid. He could not engage a private lawyer and legal

aid was required to be provided to him. In that view of the matter it is

clarified and accordingly punishment for default sentence is modified as

under :-

In case, fine amount of Rs.50,000/- is not deposited by the

appellant, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the

offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C.