Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a mathematics teacher at Yashoyash School, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 366 read with 34, 376, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecutrix, a minor student in the same school, alleged that the appellant insisted on marrying her, embraced her during school hours, and threatened her with serious consequences if she disclosed the acts. After she stopped attending school, the appellant, with the aid of the prosecutrix’s mother (co‑accused), took her to his house and later to his maternal uncle’s village, where he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix’s brother, upon learning of the incident, lodged an FIR on 23 December 2000. The defence contended false implication due to the appellant’s refusal to marry the prosecutrix and highlighted inconsistencies in her testimony, including the omission of earlier acts of embracing in the FIR and her failure to raise an alarm or inform passers‑by. The High Court examined the appeal against conviction, but the provided text of the oral judgment is incomplete and does not contain the court’s analysis or final decision; the outcome remains unknown from the available material.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under sections 366 read with 34, 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code was justified.
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 76
Criminal Appeal No.1230 of 2004
Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for appellant, Mr.R.Y.Mirza, A.P.P. for State
Marappa @ Gurusidha Bhimrao Padavale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction
Remedy Sought
Quashing of conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Conviction and sentence by trial court
Previous Decisions
Convicted by IIIrd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur on 31st August 2002 in Sessions Case No.103 of 2002
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for offences under sections 366, 376, and 354 IPC, given the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony and the defence of false implication due to refusal to marry.
Submissions/Arguments
Defence: The appellant was falsely implicated because he refused to marry the prosecutrix; the brother insisted on marriage; no complaint was made about the earlier acts of embracing; the prosecutrix admitted that she did not inform police about the incident of embracing in the FIR; there were contradictions in her statement to police.
Prosecution: The prosecutrix gave a consistent account of the kidnapping and rape; the mother was an accomplice; medical evidence and seizure of articles supported the case.
Judgment Excerpts
Appellant used to embrace the prosecutrix/victim in the class room and, therefore, she stopped attending school since October 2000.
I did not give any written or oral complaint against accused No.1 to anybody, after the alleged incident of embracing. It is true that I did not inform police about the incident of embracing. It is true that I did not inform police about the incident of breast pressing and embracing in my F.I.R.
It is not true that accused No.1 was not ready to marry me. It is not true that as accused No.1 refused to marry me, therefore myself, my brother got annoyed and angry and filed false case.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the IIIrd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur on 31st August 2002 in Sessions Case No.103 of 2002 under sections 366 read with 34, 376, and 354 IPC. He filed Criminal Appeal No.1230 of 2004 before the High Court of Bombay.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 366, 376, 354, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 209
