[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Suresh Kambli vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Desaiganj ... on 11 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4064
1 5-apeal 730-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.730/2023
Rajesh Suresh Kambli
aged about 29 Years, Occup.Cultivation,
R/o Kondhala, Tq.Desaiganj, Dist.Gadchiroli.
Appellant
- Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Desaiganj,
District.Gadchiroli.
2. X.Y.Z. (Victim)
in Crime No.383 of 2019
Registered by Police Station
Desaiganj,Dist.Gadchiroli Respondents
-----------------
Mrs.Sonali Saware-Gadhawe,Advocate(Appointed) for the Appellant.
Mr.B.M.Lonare, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Bhavya C.Dhruv, Advocate (Appointed) for Respondent No.2.
---------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 04.02.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 11.03.2026.
JUDGMENT
1) This is an Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as "Cr.P.C." as short)
2 5-apeal 730-23.odt
against the judgment and order dated 14/12/2021 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli convicting the Appellant for the
offence punishable under Sections 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code
(for short IPC) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen
thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
2) The prosecution's case, as revealed from the police
report, is as under:-
The Victim, who was the resident of Kondhala Tq.
Desaiganj, District Gadchiroli was working with the Tuteja Hospital
at Desaiganj as a nurse. On 08.12.2019 after duty hours, she came to
the Desaiganj bus stop at 7.30 pm for going to her house. While
waiting at the bus stop, she noticed the Appellant. Since, the
Appellant was also the resident of Kondhala, she knew him. She
asked the Appellant, whether he was going to Kondhala and the
Appellant replied in the affirmative. The Appellant was having the
two wheeler. She asked the Appellant as to whether, she can come
with him to Kondhala and the Appellant agreed. She sat on the
motorcycle and they proceeded. At half (½) distance the Appellant
stopped the motorcycle near the Shivrajpur Phata. When she asked
3 5-apeal 730-23.odt
him the reason for stopping the motorcycle, the Appellant responded
that, he should get something as he had taken her for such a long
distance. The Appellant started tearing her clothes. When she
resisted, the Appellant pressed her throat and mouth. The Appellant
molested and raped her. As the Appellant gagged her throat, she
could not raise alarm. After committing the rape, the Appellant left
the spot. Due to the forceful sexual intercourse, she became
unconscious. She regained the consciousness after half (½) an hour.
Her belongings were not found. Somehow she reached by the side of
the road by walking for a kilo meter. She reached at one pan stall,
which was found locked. She tried to get the lift from the vehicles
passing, however, none of the vehicle stopped. She reached the rice
mill, where she find one person. On request, the said person made a
phone call to a person from her village. The said person informed
the father of the Victim. After some time, her father and brother
came and she went with them. She narrated the incident to her
parents and brother and they went to the Wadsa, Desaiganj Police
Station and lodged the report at Exh.24.
3) The Victim was referred for medical examination. Spot
panchnama was conducted. Her samples were drawn. The Appellant
came to be arrested. The Appellant was sent for medical
4 5-apeal 730-23.odt
examination. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The
seized articles were not sent to the Chemical Laboratory. On
completion of the investigation, the Appellant came to be Charge-
sheeted.
4) The learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the
Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)
(m) and 307 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Section
3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act below Exh.6. The
Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the
Charge, the prosecution examined in all ten (10) witnesses, which
are as follows:-
i) The Victim, as PW-1.
ii) Purushottam Pandhariji Hood, panch for seizure
of motorcycle, as PW-2.
iii) Dr.Shweta Namdeo Jinde, Medical Officer who
examined the Victim, as PW-3
iv) Shuddhodhan Gurudas Bansod, who received
the phone call from the person at rice mill, as
PW-4.
v) Ramesh Jagdish Bharre, who was present at the
bus stop, as PW-5.
vi) Ramchandra Kashinath Sidam, the panch witness
for the spot panchnama, as PW-6.
5 5-apeal 730-23.odt
vii) Shrikrishna Nilkanth Juware, the Police Constable,
who carried the Muddemal to the laboratory, as
PW-7.
viii) Rupali Devaji Bawankar, the Police Officer who
recorded the statement of the Victim and
registered the crime, as PW-8.
ix) Kishor Gulabrao Purkam, the panch witness for
seizure of articles from the spot of incident, as
PW-9.
x) Sarika Arvind Gurukar, the Police Officer, who
conducted the investigation, as PW-10.
5) The relevant documents, such as the First Information
Report, the panchanamas, medical papers, letters, the Chemical
Analyser Report,(CA report) etc are brought on record in the
evidence of the aforesaid witnesses.
6) After the prosecution closed the evidence, the statement
of the Appellant came to be recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of the
Cr.P.C. The Appellant stated that, he was falsely implicated due to
the dispute between his father and the father of the Victim.
Appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court
passed the impugned judgment and order.
7) Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, learned
APP for the State and the learned Advocate for the Victim.
Scrutinised the evidence available on record.
6 5-apeal 730-23.odt
a) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that, the Victim was major by age. In the cross-examination of the
Victim, omissions are brought on record, which are proved through
the Police Officer, who recorded her statement. The panch witness
was not present at the time of the panchnama. Though the incident
is alleged to have been occurred in the public place, no independent
witness was examined. Such incident of rape cannot take place at
the public place. There was love affair between the Appellant and
the Victim. The prosecution failed to prove the Charge. The
Appellant is entitled for acquittal and the Appeal be allowed.
b) It is submitted by the learned APP that, prosecution proved
the Charge by examining the witnesses and other corroborative
evidence. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the Charge
and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the
Appellant. The Appeal be dismissed. The learned APP has relied on
the judgment in the case of State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh and ors
reported in (1996)2 SCC 384
c) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2 Victim that, there is sufficient evidence on record and the
prosecution has proved the Charge. The learned trial Court has
7 5-apeal 730-23.odt
rightly passed the impugned judgment and order. Hence, no
interference was called for in the impugned judgment and order.
8) The prosecution's case largely rests on the testimony of
the Victim, who is examined as PW-1. Her evidence shows that, she
knew the Appellant as he was resident of village Kondhala, where
she was residing. There is no dispute on the aspect that, the
Appellant was known to the Victim. The medical examination report
of the Appellant below Exh.51 and the statement under Section 313
of the Cr.P.C below Exh.60 shows the address of the Appellant as
village Kondhala, which was the village of Victim. The Victim's
evidence shows that, she was in the part time job with the Tuteja
Hospital at Desaiganj in the capacity of nurse. On 08.12.2019, after
the duty hours, she came to the bus stop at Desaiganj at 7.30 pm.
While she was waiting at the bus stop to go to Kondhala, she noticed
the Appellant at the bus stop. The Appellant was having the
motorcycle. She asked the Appellant, whether he was going to
Kondhala and when the Appellant answered in the affirmative, she
asked him whether, she can accompany him to the village and the
Appellant responded affirmatively. She sat on the motorcycle and
they proceeded. After reaching half (½) distance, the Appellant
stopped the motorcycle near Shivrajpur Phata. When she asked the
8 5-apeal 730-23.odt
Appellant the reason for stopping the motorcycle, the Appellant told
her that, he should get something as he has brought her for such a
long distance. The Appellant started tearing her clothes, she
shouted. The Appellant started pressing her whole body. The
Appellant tried to press her mouth and throat. As there was nobody
on the road, she did not receive any help. The Appellant torn her
clothes and made her to lie down. The Appellant dragged her
towards thorny bushes and committed forceful sexual intercourse
with her. When she tried to shout, the Appellant pressed her throat
and chest and so she was unable to shout. After the incident of rape,
the Appellant left the spot. She became unconscious. After half (½)
an hour, she regained consciousness. She tried to find her
belongings, however, she could not noticed the same. She came
walking by the road side and noticed one pan stall, which was
closed. Though she tried to stop the vehicles for help, no vehicle
stopped. She reached the rice mill, where she found one person.
With the help of the said person the villager Shudhhodhan Bansod
(PW-4) was contacted and he was informed that she was at the rice
mill and he was asked to inform her father. After some time, her
father and brother came and she accompanied them to home. She
narrated the incident to her family members and thereafter lodged
9 5-apeal 730-23.odt
the report. She was referred to the Woman Hospital Gadchiroli for
examination. Articles such as Sandal (Article A), top and jeggings
(Articles B and C) and knicker (Article D) were shown to her and
she identified the same as that, of her's. She identified the Appellant
as the rapist.
9) The Victim was cross-examined at length. There are
certain omissions in the evidence of the Victim, which are proved
through PW-8 Police Officer, who recorded her statement. The said
omission, though material, they are in respect of tearing the clothes,
pressing her chest, pressing her throat, scratching the lower part of
her body, becoming unconscious, leaving of the Appellant from the
spot, she regaining the consciousness, she coming to the road side by
walking, finding the pan stall, reaching the rice mill and contacting
the villager by the person, who was present at the rice mill.
However, the testimony of the Victim that, while she was waiting at
the bus stop for going to her village, noticing the Appellant at the
bus stop, she accompanying the Appellant on his motorcycle to her
village, stopping of the motorcycle by the Appellant at the place of
the incident and committing forceful rape are not the omissions. Her
evidence in respect of the rape by the Appellant on her is consistent
with her previous statement. It is brought on record in the cross-
10 5-apeal 730-23.odt
examination that, eight(8) to ten (10) days prior to the incident, the
Appellant had come to her house for removing the paddy-bags and
the Appellant was working with one Sunil Pardhi and she along with
her father had gone to the house of Sunil Pardhi in the night of the
day of the incident and the father of the Appellant, along with one
Suresh Kambli had come to the house of Sunil Pardhi and there were
other persons in the house of Sunil Pardhi and at that, time she said
that, she will remain unmarried, but will lodge the report as she got
into serious trouble. This cross-examination shows that, the Victim
along with her father had gone to the house of said Sunil Pardhi,
where other persons had come after the incident. The suggestion
given by the Appellant to the Victim that, there was love affair
between them is denied. Her cross examination goes to show that,
she was admitted in the hospital, where she was treated.
10) The evidence of PW-3 Shweta Jinde shows that, in
December 2019, she was posted as Medical Officer in the District
Woman Hospital, Gadchiroli. On 09.12.2019 the Victim was brought
by the Police to the hospital and she examined the Victim. The
mother of Victim was accompanying them. She recorded history
narrated by the Victim which was is in respect of the rape on her by
the Appellant on 08.12.2019, while she was going with him on the
11 5-apeal 730-23.odt
bike. Her evidence further shows that, on examination, she found
the following injuries.
A] Orbital blackening on right side of facial bone.
B] Petechial injuries on both eyes till multiple abrasion over
neck.
C] Abrasion on center of neck.
D] Multiple scratch mark over left cheek.
E] Multiple abrasions over lower edge of mandible upto
nape of neck on left side.
F] Abrasion on left breast of size 3 c.m.
G] Scratch mark on right side of chest.
H] Bite mark was present on the right oreolor of breast.
I] There was abrasion of size of 6 c.m. over right side of
back below scapular region.
J] Tear present on labia minora approximately 5 c.m.
K] Parauretheral laceration was present.
L] Hymen was ruptured.
M] Fourchette tear present of approximately 2 c.m.
N] Vaginal wall laceration was present on right side
extending up to posterior formix.
11) The evidence of the PW-3 medical officer shows that, she
collected the blood for DNA examination, nail clippings, cutting of
pubic hair, two vulval swab, two vaginal swab, vaginal smear,
urethral swab, urethral swab. After examination of the Victim, she
opined that, there was possibility of sexual assault. The medico
Legal Examination report of sexual violence was prepared by her
which was at Exh. 31. She deposed of preparing the document for
the chemical analysis. The cross-examination of this medical officer
confirms the examination of the Victim by her on 09.12.2019. The
12 5-apeal 730-23.odt
possibility of hymen ruptured due to cycling, dancing or playing
games like football is brought in the cross-examination of this
witness. It has come in the cross examination that, the Victim was in
a frightened condition and not ready for examination due to
bleeding. The other suggestions are denied. Nothing has come in
the cross examination of the Medical officer to create any dent in her
evidence in respect of the examination of the victim and noticing the
above referred injuries on her person.
12) The evidence of PW-4 Shuddhodhan Bansod shows that,
he was resident of the Kondhala, where the Victim was residing. He
received phone call on 08.12.2019, when he was at his house
around 9.00 p.m. He learnt about the presence of the Victim in the
rice mill. He received the message on the phone by the person
Yadav Nagtode to inform the parents of the Victim. Accordingly, he
went to the Victim's house and informed her mother that, the Victim
was at the rice mill. He went to the rice mill and found the Victim
sitting over there. The Victims hairs were scattered and she was in
a bad condition. The father and the brother of the Victim came and
they came to the village. His statement was recorded by the police.
Though there are certain omissions brought in the cross-examination
13 5-apeal 730-23.odt
the same does not affect his evidence given in the examination in
chief. He denied the suggestion that, he was deposing false.
13) The evidence of PW-9 Kishanji Purkam shows that, he was
the fireman at the Desaiganj Nagarparishad. On 9th December 2019
the Chief Officer asked him to attend the Desaiganj Police Station.
He went to the Police Station. The Police took him to the spot at
Shivrajpur Phata. The spot was inspected. The articles one nicker,
one jeggings and sandal were found on the spot. The Police seized
said articles and the blood stained soil and plain soil from the spot
the panchnama at Exh.45 was prepared. His evidence further shows
that, on the next day he was called at the Police Station, where the
clothes of the Appellant Banyan, Jarking, T-shirt and pant were
seized vide panchanama Exh.46. She identified the articles A to J
before the learned Trial Court. Though cross-examined, nothing has
come so as to create any dent in the evidence of this witness.
14) The evidence of PW-7 Shrikrishna Juware shows that, he
was the police constable with Desaiganj Police Station on 12 th
December 2019. He carried the muddemal in the Crime No.383 of
2019 of Desaiganj Police Station to the forensic laboratory as per the
directions. The acknowledgement is at Exh.39 is brought on record
in that regard. The duty pass at Exh.40 is brought on record.
14 5-apeal 730-23.odt
Though it has come in the cross-examination that, the date and
timing of reaching the destination was blank in the duty pass and in
the report submitted by him below Exh.41 did not mention the date
and timings, his evidence remained unshaken. The evidence of this
witness goes to show that, the seized muddemal was sent to the
laboratory for examination.
15) The reports of the chemical analysers in respect of the
muddemal in the crime are brought on record at Exh.14. Though the
CA report shows the blood stained on kurta, banyan dupatta, the
blood group is shown to be inconclusive, therefore, the CA report
cannot be said to be of any assistance to the prosecution.
16) There cannot be any dispute in respect of the settled
legal position stated in the State of Punjab (supra) that, the
testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of
her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the
testimony of a Victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused,
where her testimony inspires the confidence and is found to be
reliable. As discussed above, the Victim has narrated the incident of
rape committed on her by the Appellant. Except the omissions,
which do not create any dent in the Victim's testimony in respect of
15 5-apeal 730-23.odt
incident of rape, nothing has come in her evidence, so as to
disbelieve her. Her resistance itself is the pointer that, the act of
sexual intercourse by the Appellant was without consent of Victim.
Her testimony is well corroborated by the medical evidence, which
shows the injuries on the Victim. The medical examination of the
Victim was immediately after the incident. The testimony of the
Victim is found trustworthy. Her evidence remained unshaken in the
cross-examination. The evidence of the Victim, corroborated by the
Medical Evidence completely rules out the defence that, the
Appellant and Victim had consensual relations. The defence of the
Appellant is that, of false implication due to the dispute between his
father and the father of the Victim. The said defence is not probable.
With the above discussed evidence, particularly, the evidence of the
Victim and the medical evidence the prosecution has proved the
charge of rape against the Appellant. Thus, the impugned judgment
of the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the Appellant
for the offence of rape cannot be faulted. The Appeal fails. Hence the
following order.
ORDER
(i) The Appeal stands dismissed.
(v) R and P be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
16 5-apeal 730-23.odt
(vi) Fees of the learned appointed Advocate for Appellant is
quantified at Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). The
same be paid accordingly by the High Court Legal Services
Authority.
(vii) Fees of the learned appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2
is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only). The
same be paid accordingly by the High Court Legal Services
Authority.
(viii) Criminal Appeal stands disposed of.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Kavita
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/03/2026 15:03:38
