Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, convicting the accused, a beat marshal, for raping a 17-year-old prosecutrix at a police chowky near Marine Drive, Mumbai. The prosecutrix was a college student participating in a first aid training course. On 21 April 2005, after a training session, she and a friend, PW-2 Pramod, went to the Marine Drive promenade and sat on the parapet wall. A private security guard, PW-3 Sumit, noticed them and informed the accused, who was on patrolling duty as a beat marshal. The accused summoned the prosecutrix and PW-2 to the police chowky, threatened them with charges of indecent behavior, demanded Rs.5,000 from PW-2, and detained the prosecutrix when PW-2 left to arrange the money. The accused then closed the door, consumed liquor, and forcibly raped the prosecutrix three times despite her resistance. After about an hour, she escaped and met PW-5 Tiwari, an acquaintance, to whom she complained. An alarm was raised, passers‑by and media gathered, and the police were called. An FIR was registered under sections 376(2)(a)(b), 342, 506(II), and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigating officer visited the spot, conducted a panchanama, seized articles including a water bottle smelling of alcohol, and sent the prosecutrix and accused for medical examination. A notebook containing the names and addresses of the prosecutrix and PW-2, allegedly written by the accused, was seized, and a handwriting expert's opinion was obtained. The accused also faced a charge under section 85(i)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, for consuming liquor. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under sections 342, 506(II), and 376(2)(a)(b) IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and fine for rape, along with shorter terms for wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation. He was acquitted under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Aggrieved, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.485 of 2006 challenging the conviction, while the State filed Criminal Appeal No.512 of 2006 against the acquittal under the Prohibition Act and seeking enhancement of the sentence. Before the High Court, the accused argued that the prosecutrix's testimony was uncorroborated by medical evidence, contained discrepancies and improvements, and that the chemical analyser's report was exculpatory. He contended that he was falsely implicated due to media hype and public outcry, that the writing on the notebook was not his, and that the incident was improbable in broad daylight with companions nearby. The State countered that the prosecutrix's evidence was credible, supported by immediate FIR and medical findings, and that the conviction was well-founded. The High Court heard the appeals and reserved judgment on 15 April 2011, pronouncing it on 6 May 2011. The complete judgment text is not available, and the final decision is therefore not mentioned.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.485 OF 2006
