Bombay High Court
Narayan S/O Ashok Ragde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 June, 2014
Author: V.M. Deshpande
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
G.A.Ghule
[P.A.]
1/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Criminal Appeal No.452 Of 2013.
[ Jail Appeal ]
1. Narayan s/o Ashok Ragde.
Age : 24 Years., Occ.: Labourer.
2. Rahim Shah s/o Bashir Shah.
Age : 28 Years., Occ.: Labourer.
Both R/o.: Shah-Nagar, Masnatpur, Chikhalthana, Aurangabad.
At present both the Appellants are in
Harsool Central Prison, Aurangabad. :: Appellants.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Police Inspector,
M.I.D.C., CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.
2. Yasmin d/o Shaikh Mohammad.
Age : 17 Years., Occ.: Student.
R/o.: Rahemaniya Colony, Aurangabad.
:: Respondents.
Appearance =>
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra.
Mrs. Majusha Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 :::
2/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
Coram : V.M. Deshpande, J.
Reserved On : 11th June, 2014.
Pronounced On : 24th June, 2014.
J U D G M E N T :-
Being dis-satisfied by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 21st October, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.409 Of 2011, the appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The Court below convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable U/Section 376(g) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [ In short, the I.P.Code ] and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten [10] years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- [ Rs.Ten Thousand only] each, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of nine [9] months. They were also convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 366(A) read with 34 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five [5] years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- [ Rs. Five Thousand only ] each, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months. The appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 363 read with 34 of the I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five [5] years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- [ Rs.Five Thousand only] each, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six [6] months.
[2] The prosecutrix, who was minor girl of 14 years filed First Information Report Exh.No.20 on 3rd July, 2011 with M.I.D.C., CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. The FIR shows that, at the relevant time, she was residing with her mother Jamilabee Shaikh Mohammad [P.W.No.5].
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 :::3/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw The father of the prosecutrix died about ten years back. At Shah Nagar, Masnatpur, Chikhalthana, Aurangabad, one plot belonging to the mother of prosecutrix was situated, whereon the construction work of the house was in progress, at the relevant time. In the said locality, Aminabee Dagadu Shah [P.W.No.9], maternal aunt of prosecutrix resides.
[3] On 2nd July, 2011 in the morning hours, the prosecutrix had been to the school. She returned at 12/30 hrs. After returning to the home, with the permission of her mother, she proceeded towards her house at Shah Nagar. She was alone in the house. At 6 O'clock, in the evening time, appellant No.1 Narayan came there and insisted to open the door of the house; however, the prosecutrix did not oblige to the request of appellant No.1. About 1 ½ hrs. thereafter when the prosecutrix had been to grocery shop of Thokale for purchasing some articles, appellant No.1 Narayan came there from her backside alongwith Appellant No.2 - Rahim. They both took her forcibly near one brick-kiln. That time, she tried to raise shout, however her mouth was gagged and threat to cause her death was extended to her.
Thereafter, lying her down on the ground, both the appellant committed sexual assault on her against her will and wish. Anyhow, she rescued herself and ran away through the broken compound wall. She was shouting that time. One Somya came there and helped her for running from the spot. Thereafter, prosecutrix came near the house. That time, Sumanbai met her and she immediately disclosed the incident to her. Thereupon, said Sumanbai informed the same to the maternal aunt of prosecutrix. Thereafter, she was taken to the police Station, where she reported the matter. The prosecutrix immediately sent for her medical examination. After her medical examination, when she was returning, she met with her mother and thereafter, she alongwith her mother went to the Police Station.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 4/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[4] On 3rd July, 2011 Police Inspector - Namdeo M. Thombare
[P.W.No.10] was on duty at M.I.D.C., CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.
The First Information Report lodged by the prosecutrix was registered as CR No.126/2011. Investigation of said Crime was handed over to Police Inspector - Namdeo Thombare.
[5] The prosecutrix handed over her wearing apparel on the same day, in presence of the panchas. The panchnama of seizure of clothes is at Exh.No.27. The Investigating Officer immediately visited the spot of incident and prepared the spot panchnama. The spot was shown to him by the prosecutrix. Said spot panchnama is at Exh.No.43.Investigating Officer / P.I. Namdeo Thombare recorded the statements of five witnesses. He arrested both the appellants on 3rd July, 2011 under the arrest panchnamas Exh.No.s. 44 & 45. He seized the apparel of both the appellants, in presence of the panchas vide seizure memorandum Exh.No.46. Upon seizure, muddemal property was handed over to the Muddemal Clerk vide muddemal receipt Exh.No.47. Investigating Officer then sent Police Constable, B.No.426 Shri. Vishwas Popatrao Bhadane to bring the kits for D.N.A. test of the appellants as well as the prosecutrix. P.C. Shri. V.P. Bhadane was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai - 98 for bring three D.N.A. kits. The Investigating Officer made a request to the Director, F.S.C., Kalina, Mumbai vide communication dated 3rd July, 2011 for sending three kits for D.N.A. tests. Office copy of said letter is at Exh.No.49. Under the request letter dated 2 nd July, 2011 [Exh.No.50], the prosecutrix was referred to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad for her medical examination. Vide communication dated 5th July, 2011 [Exh.No.51], the Investigating Officer also requested the Medical Officer of Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad to take the blood sample of the prosecutrix as well as both the appellants. The blood ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 5/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw samples were sent for the Chemical Analysis. To ascertain the age of the prosecutrix, the Investigating Officer then obtained the bonafide certificate from Sai-Baba Vidyalaya, CIDCO, N-8, Aurangabad; wherein the prosecutrix was taking her education. After the usual investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet before the court of law.
[6] The learned Magistrate, before whom the charge-sheet was filed, found that the offences are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions hence, on 11th October, 2011, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions for its trial.
[7]The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Aurangabad framed the Charge against both the accused / appellants. Both the accused claimed that they be tried.
[8] During the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven [11] witnesses and relied upon various proved documents. The learned trial court after a full dressed trial, found both the accused / appellants guilty for the offences for which they were charged and, therefore, the learned trial court was pleased to convict them, as observed in the opening paragraph of the present Judgment.
[9] I have heard Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr. P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra and Mrs. Majusha Jagtap, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. With their able assistance, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and also others record.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 6/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[10] It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the
appellants that, the appellants are falsely implicated in the present crime.
According to him, it will be unsafe to maintain the findings of guilt, as recorded by the learned trial court, against the appellants on the basis of unreliable, sketchy and uncorroborated evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses; especially the evidence of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt and, therefore, at least they are entitled for benefit of doubt. Thus, he submitted for their acquittal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed his reliance on the following reported authoritative pronouncements :-
[i] Rajoo & Ors. V/s. The Stae of M.P., 2008 DGLS (Soft) 1320.
[ii] Narender Kumar V/s. The state of NCT Of Delhi., 2012 DGLS (Soft) 270.
I have considered the argument and I have gone through the cases, cited supra.
[11] Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. He submitted that, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is inspiring confidence then even on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix also, conviction can be maintained. He submitted that the learned trial court has minutely scrutinized the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and has rightly reached to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of committing rape on minor prosecutrix, therefore, he submitted that, present Criminal Appeal be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 :::
7/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[12] Upon hearing both the learned counsel and after having gone
through the record and proceedings minutely, the following points are to be considered by this court :-
POINTS FINDINGS
[1] Whether the prosecutrix was subjected to
sexual assault on 2nd July, 2011 in between 19/30
hrs. to 19/45 hrs. at Rahemaniya Colony, Yes.
Aurangabad.?
[2]
Whether the appellants are the perpetrators
Yes.
of the atrocious act of sexual assault of minor
girl.?
[13] From the entire available evidence; both in the nature of oral
testimony and the documentary evidence, the case of the prosecution mainly revolves around the oral evidence of prosecutrix [P.W.No.1], her mother Jamilabee Shaikh Mohammad [P.W.No.5], Dr. Bharati Shankar-rao Sonawane [P.W.No.8], Medical Officer, who examined the prosecutrix, Vijayendra Gulabsingh Jadhav [P.W.No.11], who is serving as Head Master of Sai Baba Vidyalaya, CIDCO, N-8, Aurangabad and Investigating Officer / Police Inspector - Mr. Namdeo M. Thombare [P.W.No.10] [14] The Court has also examined and scrutinized minutely :-
1] Exh.No.35 - Certificate dated 03/07/2011 issued by the Medical Officer, M.C.H., Aurangabad after examining the prosecutrix, 2] Exh.No.s. 39 and 40 - Medical Certificates of examination of the appellants, ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 8/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw 3] Exh.No.s. 55 and 56 and 57 - Reports dated 11th May, 2012 issued by the Assistant Chemical Analyzer to Govt. Forensic Science Laboratory, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 98, 4] Exh.No.69 - Bonafide Certificate issued by Head Master, Sai Baba Vidyalaya, dated 30th August, 2011, 5] Exh.No.70 - Application for taking admission of the prosecutrix in Sai Baba Vidyalaya, Aurangabad, 6] Exh.No.71 - School Leaving Certificate issued by Primary School, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, and 7] Exh.No.72 - Extract of admission and school leaving Register.[15]
Exh.No.69 is the bonafide certificate issued by P.W.No.11 Vijayendra Gulabsingh Jadhav, who is serving as Head Master of Sai Baba Vidyalaya, CIDCO, N-8, Aurangabad. It shows, the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 7th November, 1997. It is to be noted here that, the prosecutrix in her First Information Report Exh.No.20 has stated that she is taking education in 9th Std. at Sai Baba Vidyalaya, N-8, Aurangabad. Exh.No.70 is the application moved by Jamilabee, mother of the prosecutrix for admitting the prosecutrix at Sai Baba Vidyalaya for the academic year 2009-2010. In the said application also, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 7th November, 1997. Prior to taking her admission at Sai Baba Vidyalaya, the prosecutrix was taking her education at Primary School of Municipal Corporation at Yashodhara Colony, Aurangabad. She left that school on 30 th June, 2009, obviously, for taking further education in Sai Baba Vidyalaya. In the TC/School Leaving Cert. issued by the Head Master of Municipal Corporation School [Exh.No.71] also the date of birth of prosecutrix is shown as 07/11/1997. Exh.No.72 is the extract of Register of admission maintained by Sai Baba Vidyalaya, wherein also, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is shown as 07/11/1997.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 9/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[16] The aforesaid evidence show that the date of birth of
prosecutrix is 7th November, 1997. Thus, consistent documentary evidence is challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on stray statement appearing in the cross-examination of P.W.No.5 Jamilabee (mother of the prosecutrix) that the prosecutrix was born in the year 1998 at Rahemaniya Colony, Aurangabad. From the evidence of Jamilabee, it is clear that, she does labour work. Nothing is brought on record to show her educational qualification. Even there is no suggestion in the cross- examination of Jamilabee at the behest of the present appellants that she is well educated. Merely because there is one line appearing in her cross- examination that the prosecutrix was born in the year 1998 that by itself is not sufficient to throw the documentary evidence duly maintained by the school authority to show that the date of birth of prosecutrix as 7th November, 1997. Date of incident is 02/07/2011. From which, it can be gathered that, the prosecutrix was 14 years of age at the time of incident.
Same is the age which she has given while lodging her First Information Report with the Police.
[17] The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecutrix was not subjected to ossification test, therefore, age as given by the prosecutrix should not be readily accepted. Though the ossification test is not carried in the present case, that by itself does not render the prosecution case as untrue, in respect of age of the prosecutrix, in the light of the availability of the documentary evidence placed on record and as pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, I have no hesitation to record a findings that on 2nd July, 2011 i.e. on the date of incident, the prosecutrix was of tender age of 14 years and was minor.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 10/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[18] The evidence of prosecutrix was subjected to very detail and
searching cross-examination. The learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the evidence adduced by prosecutrix where-in she deposed that, she resisted appellant No.1 - Narayan by nail and beat him by hands and there was injury on her back. According to the learned counsel for appellants, her statement have no support in Exh.No.35, the medical certificate of the prosecutrix dated 03/07/2011, which shows that there is no evidence evidence of violence on her body. At this juncture, in her cross- examination the accused have brought on record the following :-
"shirt was torn in scuffle."[19]
Medical Officer Dr. Bharati Shankar-rao Sonawane [P.W.No.8] at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix found that, "presence of tears of her clothes were noticed and accordingly, it has been mentioned at column No.5 of report Exh.No.39 under the head 'Examination of Clothes'. Further the spot of occurrence was brick kiln and Medical Officer has also found mud stains on her clothes, apart from blood and seminal stains. These facts lead assurance to the version of prosecution that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault near the brick kiln and that time, she attempted to resist both the appellants. The Court cannot forget one fact that, the appellants are fully grown male. The arrest panchnama Exh.No.s. 44 and 45 reflect that they have well built physique.
[20] When two fully grown and well built male are committing sexual assault on a helpless, thin minor girl, though there is resistance on her part, certainly any physical violence on their person, will not appear, therefore, the submission made on behalf of the appellants that Exh.Nos. 39 and 40 the medical examination of the appellants though not showing any violence on their body, in my mind, is of no consequence.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 11/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[21] P.W.No.8 is Medical Officer Dr. Bharati Sonawane. On the
date, when the prosecutrix was brought to her by L.P.C./2039 of MIDC, CIDCO Police Station, she was attending emergency duty in Labour Room of Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad. On her examination, she found that, there are blood and seminal stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix. She deposed as under :-
Her hymen was ruptured. There was fresh tear of hymen. Her labia majora was swollen. Hymen was torn and there was fresh bleeding present.
[22] Criticism was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants regrading the truthfulness of the entire prosecution case submitting that that the prosecutrix was brought before P.W.No.8 Dr. Bharati, for her medical examination. That time, though she has given history that she was subjected to forceful sexual assault however, she disclosed about sexual assault by some persons and did not specifically disclose, by the present appellants. According to the learned counsel for the appellants since the names of present appellants were not disclosed to the Medical Officer that fact itself creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the entire prosecution case.
[23] The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel is to be rejected outrightly. The victim was referred for her medical examination to the Medical Officer. The M.O. was expected to conduct the medical examination of the prosecutrix, which PW 8 Dr. Bharati had done. It was not expected at the time of medical examination either from the prosecutrix to narrates the names of assailants nor PW 8 Dr. Bharati was under obligation to enquire with the prosecutrix about the names of culprits, who sexually assaulted her. Therefore, merely because the prosecutrix has narrated, she ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 12/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw was subjected to sexual assault by some persons that does not render the prosecution as untrue or there cannot be any doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that, she has given detail account of the acts done by the appellants. There is nothing in her entire evidence to disbelieve that she was not subjected to sexual intercourse against her will and wish.
[24] The version of prosecutrix that, there is sexual intercourse with her finds supports from her medical examination. Medical Certificate Exh.No. 35 and the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Bharati clearly show and establish that the prosecutrix was subjected to the sexual assault, prior to her medical examination. In the cross-examination, P.W.No.8 Dr. Bharati in clinching words has deposed that " hymen tear is not possible due to bicycling or playing game; nor hymen tear is possible due to insertion of a finger into the vagina." This aspects are brought on the record during the course of cross-examination of PW 8 Dr. Bharati, who examined the prosecutrix. Further most important aspect is that, when the prosecutrix was brought for her medical examination, at that time, there was bleeding from her private part. The relevant portion is reproduced herein-under :-
" When the patient was brought, there was bleeding from her private part. There were blood stains on her clothes"
[25] It is important to note here that during the course of their examination before the court, no suggestion was given either to the prosecutrix or her mother - Jamilabee that at the time of medical examination of prosecutrix by the Medical Officer, she was having her menses. Fact that when the prosecutrix, who was not in her menses, when she was brought for her medical examination, that time, there was bleeding from her private part which clearly indicates that, there is truthfulness in the ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 13/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw prosecution case that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault. On re- appreciation of entire evidence of P.W.No.1 prosecutrix, P.W.No.8 Dr. Bharati lead me to answer point No.1 in the affirmative that the prosecutrix was subjected to atrocious act of sexual assault on her against her will and wish.
[26] Now, next point is, whether the appellants are the perpetrator of the atrocious act of sexual assault on the prosecutrix, a minor girl. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously urged before this court that, both the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present crime, at the behest of the prosecutrix. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel submitted that, if the evidence of prosecutrix is minutely scrutinized then it is clear that at the behest of some one the prosecutrix has taken the names of the appellants. He further submitted that, since the prosecution has not examined Somya and Sumanbai before the court, that creates serious doubt and thus, benefit of that doubt, should be extended to the present appellants. According to the learned counsel, there was no reason for the prosecutrix to know the names of the present appellants. According to the learned counsel, there was no test identification parade, during the course of investigation, which according to him, is fatal.
[27] The evidence of prosecutrix would reveals that at the time of occurrence, she was residing with her mother at Rahemaniya Colony, Aurangabad. The said is the address which she has mentioned in the First Information Report Exh.No.20. Even the evidence of her mother Jamilabee shows that they were residing at Rahemaniya Colony, Aurangabad..
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 14/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw
[28] The F.I.R., evidence adduced by the prosecutrix and her mother
show that, Jamilabee, mother of the prosecutrix possess one plot at Shah Nagar, Masnatpur, Chikhalthana, Aurangabad. According to the prosecutrix when she had been to her house at Shah Nagar, Masnatpur at about 6 O'clock, appellant No.1 Narayan knocked the door of her house however, she did not open the same. But thereafter at 7.00 p.m. when she had been to grocery shop, both the appellants came there and took her forcibly near one brick kiln and there she was subject to the sexual assault.
[29] In the F.I.R. itself the prosecutrix has given the names of present appellants as the perpetrator, who made her the victim of their lust and committed the sexual assault. Since in the First Information Report itself she has given the names of the present appellants that presupposes that she was knowing them. In that view of the matter, merely because the test identification parade was not conducted, during the course of investigation that by itself does not means that doubt can be raised about truthfulness of the prosecution case.
[30] The learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the statement given by the prosecutrix that she visited Shah Nagar, Masnatpur, Chikhalthana, Aurangabad for the first time at the time of incident. Based on this admission, the learned counsel tried to develop his argument that, if for the first time the prosecutrix visited the same locality, there was no reason for her to know the appellants.
[31] Evidence of witnesses has to be read in a whole. The appreciation of the evidence of witnesses has to be done by the court by considering the entire testimony of the witnesses. Stray statement here and there appearing in the testimony of the witness by itself does not render the ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 15/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw entire evidence of the said witness as falsehood, if such stray statement is not in conformity with the another testimony of the said witness, when said statement of the witness is considered in its entirety.
[32] In the present case, the court will require to read the whole evidence of the prosecution together with the First Information Report which the prosecutrix has lodged. The F.I.R. clearly shows that, after the incident immediately she was taken to the Police Station, from where, she was referred for her medical examination. There is no delay in lodging the First Information Report. If the First Information Report is lodged immediately, as in the present case, the possibility of false implication of the present appellants, is completely rulled out. Further there was no reason for this tender age girl to falsely implicate the appellants.
[33] During the course of cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it is tried to brought on record that, construction work of their house was going on in Shah Nagar, Masnatpur, Chikhalthana, Aurangabad and for that purpose, her mother - Jamilabee had taken construction material and cement etc. on credit. Though this suggestion was turned down by the prosecutrix; it was tried to establish that, mother of prosecutrix purchased construction material from one Rafique Sheth. It was further tried to brought on record only by was of suggestion and of course, those suggestions were immediately denied by the prosecutrix. It was suggested that, one Kalim Mistri [ meson ] and Rafique Sheth were demanding their money from the mother of prosecutrix and she i.e. Jamilabee, mother of the prosecutrix was not able to repay the same to them. By way of this suggestion, it was tried to show that, present appellant No.1 - Narayan is the Driver of said Rafique Sheth. In the cross-examination of P.W.No.5 Jamilabee, suggestion was given to her that, Appellant No.2 Rahim was working with Kalim Mistri.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 :::16/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw Though P.W.No.5 Jamilabee has admitted that Kalim Mistri has done construction work of her house, she has denied that, she had purchased bricks from Rafique Sheth. Be that as it may, at the most the dispute will be with Kalim Mistri [ meson ] and Rafique Sheth. If the mother of prosecutrix wants to implicate falsely to anybody, by picking the prosecutrix as her tool, Kalim Mistri [ meson ] and Rafique Sheth would have been the victims of her mother and the prosecutrix. Merely because the appellants were working as driver and helper with Rafique Sheth and Kalim Mistri, there was no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate both of them. Further from the witness-box, the prosecutrix has identified the appellants as the perpetrator responsible for the sexual assault made on her, as the girl will not forget the real culprits, who subjected her to the sexual assault.
[34] Exh.No.46 is the panchnama of undergarment of appellant No.1and full pant of Appellant No.2. Exh.No.55 examination report of Asstt. C.A., dated 7th May, 2012 shows that these two clothes were having semen stains, though grouping was not done. No explanation was offered by both the appellants in their statements recorded U/Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the learned trial court about the existence of semen on their wearing apparel. That is also one of the circumstance which connect both the appellants with the present crime.
[35] The learned trial court has supplemented his reasons as to why the court has recorded the findings that the appellants are guilty of commission of the offence, for which they are charged.
[36] On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I have no hesitation in my mind to conclude that the prosecutrix, who was minor girl at the time of incident, was subjected to sexual assault on 2nd July, 2011 in between ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 ::: 17/17 cri.appeal 452.13 %5B Judg. %5D.sxw 19/30 hrs. to 19/45 hrs. at Rahemaniya Colony, Aurangabad and the appellants are the perpetrators of the atrocious act of rape of minor girl.
Hence, I found no merit in the present Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Order dated 21 st October, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2 Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.409 Of 2011 is hereby confirmed.
Criminal Appeal dismissed.
ig (V.M. DESHPANDE, J. )
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2014 23:51:15 :::