Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an incident on 19.11.2014 where a minor girl aged 16 years was allegedly abducted by three accused in a white Omni car. According to the prosecution, the victim was taken to a secluded spot and raped by the accused. The victim's father lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of crime No.180/2014 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences under Sections 363/34 and 366A/34 IPC, and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, and accused No.3 under Sections 363/109, 366A/34 IPC and Sections 7/8 and 16/17 POCSO Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment ranging from two to ten years. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No.713 of 2016 challenging the conviction and sentence on grounds of contradictions and omissions in the evidence and political rivalry between the families. The High Court heard arguments from the appellants' counsel, who contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the inconsistencies and that the victim had a love affair with another accused, leading to false implication. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the final decision of the High Court.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.713 OF 2016
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (04) 42
Criminal Appeal No.713 of 2016 with Criminal Application No.6642 of 2016
Mr.N.B.Narwade for appellants, Mr.V.S.Badakh, APP for respondent
Jishan S/o. Basir Qureshi, Don @ Shakir Shabbir Sayyad, Shoyeb S/o. Taher Qureshi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the trial court's judgment convicting them for offences under IPC and POCSO Act
Previous Decisions
Conviction and sentence dated 11.11.2016 by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Beed in Special (Child Protection) Case No.49/2014
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in relying on the evidence of the victim and her statement under Section 164 CrPC despite contradictions and omissions?
Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 366A IPC?
Whether the defence of political rivalry and love affair is valid?
Submissions/Arguments
Trial court acquitted accused for some offences but relied on same evidence to convict for others
Contradictions and omissions in evidence of victim (PW1), father (PW2), and Bashir (PW3) falsify abduction by Omni car
Father and Bashir not eyewitnesses to kidnapping
Victim admitted political rivalry between mother and accused No.1's brother in Grampanchayat election
Bashir testified victim told him she came with accused No.4 for a ride, indicating love affair and false implication
Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of offence under Section 366A IPC
Judgment Excerpts
Accused No.1 Jishan Bashsir Qureshi and accused No.2 Don @ Shakir Shabbir Sayyed are convicted for the offence punishable 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code...
the trial Court has based the conviction on the basis of evidence of the victim and her statement (Exh.70) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
there is political enmity between accused No.1 and the family of the victim and as such defence in this respect of the accused is established by the accused.
Procedural History
FIR lodged on 20.11.2014; investigation; charge-sheet filed; trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Beed; conviction on 11.11.2016; appeal filed and admitted on 20.12.2016; accused No.3 granted bail; hearing on 25.03.2019; judgment pronounced on 12.04.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 363, 366A, 376D, 506, 34, 109
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 7, 8, 16, 17, 4, 5(g), 6
- Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 428, 164
