Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, heard three connected criminal appeals arising from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 160/2010 dated 18.02.2012. The trial court had convicted the accused, Prakash @ Jaywant Wasudeo Wankhede, the maternal grandfather of the six-year-old victim, under Sections 376 read with 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to rape and criminal intimidation, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year respectively, with fines. The accused was acquitted of the completed offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The accused appealed against his conviction, while the victim and the State appealed against the acquittal for rape. The prosecution case was that in April-May 2009, when the victim and her mother visited the accused's house for a marriage function, the accused repeatedly committed sexual acts on the child during the night, inserting his finger and penis in her private parts, and threatened her with death if she disclosed. The victim developed psychological trauma and eventually disclosed the incident to her grandmother, leading to a complaint lodged by her father on 25.08.2009 after consulting psychiatrists and a counseling wing. The defence argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, which was not satisfactorily explained, and that the case was a false implication arising from serious matrimonial disputes between the victim's parents, with the child being tutored to make allegations. The defence also pointed to the suppression of medical evidence from a Nashik doctor and relied on precedents to emphasize the importance of prompt FIR and the need for cautious evaluation of child testimony. The High Court reserved judgment on 16.02.2015 and pronounced it on 08.05.2015, but the available text of the judgment ends after recording the appellant's arguments, and the final decision and reasoning are not included.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.117 OF 2012
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (05) 1
Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal Nos.142 of 2012 and 540 of 2012
Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Mr. Pravin G. Patil, Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Mr. S.G.Karlekar
Prakash @ Jaywant Wasudeo Wankhede
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal in a case of alleged sexual assault on a six-year-old girl by her maternal grandfather.
Remedy Sought
In Criminal Appeal No.117/2012, the accused sought to overturn his conviction for attempt to rape and criminal intimidation; in Criminal Appeal Nos.142/2012 and 540/2012, the victim and the State sought conviction for the completed offence of rape under Section 376 IPC and enhancement of sentence.
Filing Reason
The accused challenged his conviction on grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay in filing FIR, false implication arising from matrimonial disputes between the victim's parents, and unnatural and tutored testimony of the child; the victim and State challenged the acquittal for rape on the ground that evidence established penetration.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No.160/2010, convicted the accused under Sections 376 read with 511 and 506 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year respectively with fines, but acquitted him of the offence under Section 376 IPC.
Issues
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained
Whether the testimony of the child witness was credible or the result of tutoring
Whether the medical evidence supported the charge of rape or only attempt to rape
Whether the conviction under Section 376/511 IPC was justified
Whether the acquittal under Section 376 IPC was proper
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-accused argued that there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR from the date of the alleged incidents, which was not adequately explained by the prosecution, and such delay raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
It was contended that the case was a false implication arising from serious matrimonial disputes between the victim's father Manoj Deore and his wife Sonali (the accused's daughter), including demands for divorce and allegations of harassment, and that the child was tutored to make allegations to pressure the accused's family.
The appellant relied on the testimonies of psychiatrists and doctors to show that the period between the victim's return to Nashik and the filing of the complaint was used to create evidence and coach the child, and argued that suppression of initial medical treatment records from a Nashik doctor warranted an adverse inference.
Judgment Excerpts
He used to sleep with victim and in the night hours, he used to cover her face with a sheet, remove her under garment, insert his finger in her private part, apply his semen on that part and smell of it.
there is serious matrimonial dispute and proceedings are initiated for maintenance and domestic violence by Sonali.
the complaint is result of tutoring of victim daughter of P.W.7 Manoj and Sonali.
Procedural History
On 25.08.2009, an FIR was lodged at Sakri Police Station under Sections 376 read with 511 and 506 IPC. After investigation, the accused was arrested and charge-sheeted, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. In Sessions Case No.160/2010, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, framed charges under Sections 376, 376/511, and 506 IPC, and upon trial, convicted the accused on 18.02.2012 for attempt to rape and criminal intimidation, acquitting him of the completed offence of rape. Criminal Appeal No.117/2012 by the accused, Criminal Appeal No.142/2012 by the victim, and Criminal Appeal No.540/2012 by the State were filed before the High Court. The High Court reserved judgment on 16.02.2015 and pronounced it on 08.05.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 376/511, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 209, 313
