Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard two criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of conviction in Sessions Case No.489 of 2010 decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 21.10.2011. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 342 read with 120-B, 366 read with 120-B, 506(2) read with 120-B, and 376(2)(g) read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, with sentences of life imprisonment for conspiracy and gang rape, ten years for abduction, seven years for criminal intimidation, and one year for wrongful confinement, all substantive sentences to run concurrently. The incident occurred on 1.4.2010 from 4:30 p.m. till 12:45 a.m. on 2.4.2010. The prosecutrix, an educated woman working in a private hospital, was waiting at Mankar Square for a bus to attend a seminar at Bhandarkar Road. A maroon Indica car bearing registration No.MH-14-AV-3015 stopped, and the driver offered a lift. The driver was accused No.1 Subhash Bhosale, and the front passenger was accused No.2 Ganesh Kamble. Instead of taking her to the destination, the accused drove around, took her to Aundh, Pune University, a garage, then on the highway. The prosecutrix called her brother's friends SB and SBP, expressing suspicion. Despite her request to be dropped at a bus stop, the accused continued. Accused No.3 Ranjeet Gade joined later and drove. The prosecutrix was slapped, gagged, shown a knife, and threatened that more persons would be called to rape her. She was made to sit between the two accused on the rear seat. The accused bought beer and food, consumed it, and then took her to a secluded place where all three raped her one after the other. She was dropped near her residence at midnight. Her mother had become suspicious during a phone call because she addressed her parents as aunt and uncle, leading relatives to search. Police were informed, and she was medically examined. Her statement was recorded as FIR C.R. No.87 of 2010 at Hinjewadi Police Station under various sections including 376(2)(g) IPC. Accused Ganesh and Ranjeet were arrested on 2.4.2010, and accused Subhash on 3.4.2010. The Indica car was seized near accused No.1's house; blood and semen stains were found. A chance fingerprint on the rear view mirror matched Ganesh. The prosecutrix's mobile phone, knife, beer bottles, and food packets were recovered at the instance of accused No.1. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses. The defence in statements under Section 313 CrPC was total denial, but suggestions to PW-1 on behalf of accused No.1 suggested that sexual intercourse with him was consensual. The defence claimed false implication due to police grudge as accused No.1 had other offences, an externment order was revoked, and he was president of a Rickshaw Union. The court, while recording the evidence of the prosecutrix, noted that she was an educated lady holding a responsible post, identified all accused in court and in test identification parade. The court observed that the cross-examination of PW-1 was lengthy but devoid of much substance, mostly directed at her background and marital life. The excerpt provided ends during the description of cross-examination without stating the final conclusion or operative order of the High Court. Therefore, the final decision on the appeals is not mentioned in the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Gang Rape - Section 376(2)(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The prosecutrix deposed that she was abducted in an Indica car, taken to isolated places, threatened with a knife, and raped by all three accused one after the other; she identified all accused in court and in test identification parade held on 15.4.2010 (Paras 3.1, 6-8). B) Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Common intention - All accused were convicted under Section 120-B read with substantive offences; accused called third accused to join, shared common plan to abduct and rape, and acted in furtherance of common intention (Paras 3.1, 7). C) Criminal Law - Abduction and Wrongful Confinement - Sections 366 and 342 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Detention in car - Accused took prosecutrix to various places against her will from 4:30 p.m. to midnight, did not drop her at bus stop despite request, and confined her between two accused on back seat; she was gagged and threatened (Paras 3.1, 7). D) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506(2) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Threat with knife - Accused showed knife, slapped, gagged prosecutrix, and threatened to call more persons to commit rape, causing alarm and fear for life (Para 7). E) Evidence Law - Test Identification Parade - Identification of accused - Prosecutrix identified accused in test identification parade and in court; chance fingerprint on rear view mirror matched accused Ganesh; recovery of mobile phone and weapon at instance of accused No.1 supported identification (Paras 3.1, 8). F) Criminal Law - Consent in Rape - Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 375 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Defence of total denial but suggestion of consent - Defence recorded under Section 313 CrPC denied all allegations, yet suggestions to PW-1 on behalf of accused No.1 suggested consensual sexual intercourse; court noted cross-examination of PW-1 was lengthy but devoid of substance, and final appreciation of evidence was pending (Paras 3.3, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 120-B, 342, 366, 506(2) and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code; whether the sexual intercourse was with consent as suggested by the defence; whether the identification of the accused was reliable; whether the prosecutrix's testimony was credible
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt; the text ends during cross-examination of PW-1 before the final conclusion
Law Points
- Prosecutrix's testimony is crucial in sexual offence cases
- identification of accused in test identification parade and court is relevant
- defence of total denial contradicted by suggestions of consent
- circumstantial evidence such as fingerprint and blood/semen stains supports prosecution
- common intention and conspiracy can be inferred from sequence of events
