Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal appeal filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by Hiralal Kasam Shaikh, challenging his conviction by the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997. The appellant was convicted under Sections 376 read with 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for attempting to rape a 15-year-old Scheduled Caste girl and criminally intimidating her. The trial court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for varying periods and imposed fines, with sentences running concurrently. The incident allegedly occurred on 24.06.1997 near the bank of river Khairi at village Dhanegaon, where the prosecutrix was grazing her goats. The appellant, a resident of the same village, approached her, forcibly embraced her, pulled her down, pressed her breasts, untied her salwar, and attempted to commit rape. Her shouts attracted her parents, who rushed to the spot, causing the appellant to flee after threatening her. The FIR was lodged the next day at Jamkhed Police Station, leading to registration of Crime No. 68/1997. Investigation followed, including medical examination of the prosecutrix, which revealed abrasions on her breast and contusion on sternum, and seizure of her torn brassier. The appellant was arrested and later released on bail. The prosecution examined five witnesses: the doctor, a panch, the prosecutrix, her mother, and the retired police head constable who registered the crime. The appellant denied the charges and filed a written statement claiming false implication due to a prior quarrel over damage to crops by the prosecutrix's goats. He also pleaded that he had a physical disability, missing one leg below the knee, making the alleged forceful act improbable. The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant. On appeal, the High Court admitted the appeal and suspended the sentence. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the one-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to the village police patil, no independent witnesses from the nearby Zopadpatti were examined, and the non-examination of Balu Mohite, the field owner, cast doubt on the prosecution case. It was also contended that the prosecutrix's statement of being embraced for one hour was exaggerated, and the physical disability of the appellant made the allegations improbable. The State's counsel countered that the delay was properly explained, the prosecutrix's testimony as a rustic villager should be read as a whole, and the medical evidence corroborated her version. The court began its analysis by examining the prosecutrix's age, finding that she was about 15 years old at the time of the incident. However, the available judgment text is truncated, and the final reasoning and decision of the High Court are not fully extractable. Consequently, the outcome of the appeal and the conclusion on the merits of the case remain unknown based on the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge under Sections 376/511, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are sustainable given the alleged delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony, non-examination of independent witnesses, and the defence of false implication.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 36
Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2000
Mr. S.V. Sudrik (Appellant), Mr. P.N. Kutti (Respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Indian Penal Code and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge and for acquittal of all charges.
Filing Reason
The appellant was convicted for attempt to rape, criminal intimidation, and offence under SC/ST Act; he challenged the conviction on grounds of false implication and lack of credible evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1997 convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 19.10.2000 under Sections 376/511, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment and fine, with concurrent sentences.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 376/511, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act is sustainable in light of the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-examination of independent witnesses.
Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and credible, particularly regarding the duration of the incident and the accused's physical condition.
Whether the defence of false implication due to a prior dispute over crop damage is probable, and whether the non-examination of Balu Mohite weakens the prosecution case.
Whether the medical evidence corroborates the prosecutrix's version sufficiently to prove attempt to rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that a one-day delay in lodging FIR was unexplained, non-disclosure to police patil and non-examination of independent witnesses from Zopadpatti cast doubt on prosecution case.
Appellant contended that his physical disability (missing one leg below knee) made the allegation of forcibly embracing and overpowering the prosecutrix improbable.
Appellant pointed out that the prosecutrix's statement of being embraced for one hour was inconsistent and exaggerated, and that the presence of Balu Mohite at the spot was not corroborated by his testimony.
Respondent argued that the delay was adequately explained as the incident occurred in the evening and there was no conveyance to go to police station until next day, and the trial court correctly accepted the explanation.
Respondent submitted that the prosecutrix is a rustic village woman whose testimony should be read as a whole, indicating the incident lasted only a short time before her parents arrived upon hearing her shouts.
Respondent contended that the defence of false implication based on a crop damage dispute was not credible and the trial court rightly disbelieved it.
Respondent argued that the medical evidence of abrasions on the prosecutrix's breast and contusion on sternum corroborated the prosecutrix's version, supporting the conviction.
Judgment Excerpts
The prosecutrix – Meena Balu Pawar (PW3) is a member of Scheduled Caste i.e. Mahar.
He inserted his hands in her Punjabi dress, pulled her brassier and started pressing her breast by his hands. He untied string of her Salwar and started pulling down it.
The appellant then slept on her person and made an endeavour to commit rape on her.
In her crossexamination on behalf of the appellant, her evidence that on the date of recording her evidence, she was 18 years old and the incident took place three years back has not been challenged.
He made her to fall on the ground. He started assaulting her criminally.
Procedural History
The prosecutrix lodged FIR on 25.06.1997 at Jamkhed Police Station, leading to registration of Crime No. 68/1997 under Sections 376, 511, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar, and registered as Sessions Case No. 104/1997. Charges were framed, and the appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial court recorded evidence of five prosecution witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant filed a written statement of denial. On 19.10.2000, the Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The High Court admitted the appeal on 13.11.2000 and suspended the sentence. The appeal was heard, and judgment was reserved on 25.03.2019, and pronounced on 12.04.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 511, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(xi)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
