Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by the original accused against his conviction by the Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-7), Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 308 of 2011. The accused was convicted for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine for rape and six months with fine for the caste-based offence. The prosecution’s case, as presented, was that the prosecutrix, a 24-year-old salesgirl, met the accused near CIDCO Bus Stand about a year prior to 5 September 2010. He took her to his house under the pretext of purchasing products, but instead demanded sexual favours. When she refused, he allegedly had forcible sexual intercourse with her using threats to kill and a promise of marriage. Over the following year, he repeatedly subjected her to intercourse on the same promise but avoided marriage each time. The prosecutrix became pregnant and, together with her mother, confronted the accused. He refused marriage, insulted her by saying she belonged to a lower caste (Maang) and had no intention of marrying her, after which he and his father allegedly assaulted and threatened them. An FIR was lodged on 5 September 2010. Investigation followed, medical examinations were conducted, and after the child’s birth, DNA testing confirmed the accused as the father. The trial court convicted the accused while acquitting him of certain other charges under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, and acquitting co-accused entirely. In the High Court, the appellant argued through counsel that the prosecutrix was a major and a consenting party; that a prior complaint dated 17 August 2010 (Exhibit 16) revealed a love affair, contradicting the FIR; that the FIR was lodged with ulterior motive after refusal to marry; that no independent witness corroborated the alleged visits; that DNA evidence alone was insufficient; and that the acquittal of the co-accused on the same SC/ST charge should necessarily lead to his acquittal. The appellant relied on Abdul Salam v. State of M.P., 2006 CRI. L. J. 4734 (MP HC) and Anwar Khan Iqbal Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 CRI. L. J. 3597. The State was represented but its submissions were not recorded in the available text. The provided judgment fragment ends before the court’s analysis, findings, and final decision; thus, the outcome of the appeal and the ratio decidendi are not known from this text.
Issue of Consideration
Criminal Appeal No. 0300 of 2017
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 28
Criminal Appeal No. 0300 of 2017
Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.
Mr. N.K. Kakade for appellant; Mr. S.P. Sonpawale for respondent no. 1
Santosh s/o. Raising Chavan
1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. X (Prosecutrix)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by convicted accused against conviction under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Conviction by Special Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 308 of 2011 for offences of rape and caste-based atrocity.
Previous Decisions
Convicted on 27-06-2017 by Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge-7), Aurangabad, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine for rape, and 6 months for caste offence, with compensation.
Submissions/Arguments
Prosecutrix was a major and conscious of her actions, implying consent to the sexual relationship.
FIR stated she met accused at bus stand and was taken to his house, with no prior acquaintance, but earlier complaint dated 17-08-2010 (Exhibit 16) revealed a love affair, showing contradiction.
Prosecutrix and her mother created a scene in front of accused’s house, indicating the FIR was lodged with ulterior motive after refusal to marry.
No independent witness saw prosecutrix visiting accused’s house.
DNA test alone cannot be the basis for conviction.
Acquittal of co-accused on the same SC/ST Act charge should have resulted in acquittal of appellant, as the charge was identical.
Reliance placed on case law holding that consensual sex on promise to marry, when promise later broken, does not constitute rape if initially bonafide.
Judgment Excerpts
She had sexual intercourse with her by giving threat to kill, as well as by giving promise to marry and maintain her. (Para 2)
Accused told that she is Maang by caste, which is inferior and he has no intention to marry with her. (Para 2)
FIR Exhibit 15 shows that she came to know accused on bus stand and she alleges that she was taken to Harsul quarter under the pretext of purchasing products. (Para 7)
In that complaint, she has stated that there was love affair between her and accused. (Para 7)
Only on the basis of DNA report, accused can not be convicted. (Para 8)
Procedural History
FIR lodged on 05-09-2010; investigation and chargesheet filed; trial in Sessions Case No. 308 of 2011 before Special Judge, Aurangabad; conviction on 27-06-2017; appeal filed before High Court; heard on 26-07-2018; judgment pronounced on 06-10-2018.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 376, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: 3(1)(x)
- Code of Criminal Procedure: 357
