Bombay High Court
Kishor S/O Raghunath Shrirama vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 September, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995CRILJ1765
Author: R.M. Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha
JUDGMENT
1. The accused appellant who was tried for the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is Sessions Case No. 80/88, has filed the present appeal before this Court aggrieved by the judgment dated 28-8-1991 passed by the said Court whereby he has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The prosecution case in brief according to the statement of prosecutrix Smt. Satvaleela (P.W. 1) is that, on 20-10-1987, the husband of the prosecutrix had gone to his field early in the morning for ploughing. Prosecutrix is resident of Vaigaon, Tahsil Bramhapuri, district Chandrapur and the accused appellant is also resident of the said village. When prosecutrix was alone and she was carrying tiffin for her husband to the field at about 10 to 11 a.m. and she reached near the bank of the tank on the way to their field, the accused appellant came from the backside and caught the portion of the Sari from her head, pulled her and pressed the ball of the cloth in her mouth. The accused dragged her inside bank of the tank, put her on the ground, removed entire Sari from her person and also removed the knot of Sari with his mouth and the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The accused threatened her that in case she talked about the incident to anybody, she would kill her and threw her in the tank. The prosecutrix escaped from the hands of the accused and ran away to the field where her husband was working. When she ran away to the field, she was totally undressed except the blouse on her person. Sari of the prosecutrix remained with accused and when her husband saw prosecutrix in that condition, he threw his Lungi on her person. She narrated the entire incident to her husband. Maroti Marar who was present in his own field adjoining to the field of her husband, seeing the condition of the prosecutrix, also came near her husband. Prosecutrix, her husband and Maroti Marar then came to the place of incident and her Sari was lying there, but nobody was present. Jaiwantabai who was coming from the side of the bank of tank with fuel wood, went to the village, called the Sarpanch and Sarpanch was also brought to the place of the incident. Sarpanch also saw Sari lying on the ground. Sarpanch told prosecutrix to wear the Sari. Then all of them came to the village and she and her husband went to the police station, Bramhapuri and lodged the oral report (Ex. 11). The police then brought her to the hospital at Chandrapur and she was medically examined by the doctor.
3. The Investigating Officer, on registration of crime vide first information report (Ex. 36) started with investigation. The Investigation Officer (P.W. 11) seized Sari vide Seizure Memo (Ex. 38), prepared spot panchanama 29-10-87 (Ex. 22), seized Ambil and Khau lying on the spot vide seizure memo (Ex. 23) and recorded the statements of Jaiwantabai Shende, Shantabai, Renukabai and others on 21-10-87, seized full-pant, shirt and underwear from the accused vide Seizure Memo (Ex. 18), seized the articles brought from the hospital vide Seizure Memo (Ex. 20), sent the various articles for chemical analysis and the Chemical Analyser's Report is Ex. 41. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer charge-sheeted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC and since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, it was committed to Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No. 80/88 as stated above. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on 16-1-1991 framed the charge against the accused appellant to the effect that he on 20-10-1987 at village Vaigaon committed rape on Smt. Satwaleela wife of Rama Ramteka resident of Vaigaon against her consent and without her will and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Accused appellant pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.
4. Prosecution is support of its case examined prosecutrix Smt. Satwaleela (P.W. 1) (Ex. 10), Jaiwantabai w/o Mahadeo Shende P.W. 2 (Ex. 12), Shantabai w/o Govinda Khobragade P.W. 3 (Ex. 13), Ramesh Sadashiv Narange P.W. 4 (Ex. 14), Shankar Gedam Ramteke P.W. 5 (Ex. 16), Balaji Janardan Yende P.W. 6 (Ex. 17), Ranjana w/o Jayante Sawargaon, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chandrapur, P.W. 8 (Ex. 13), Maroti Zibal Nikode P.W. 9 (Ex. 32), Ramchandra Shioramji Patre, P.W. 10 (Ex. 33), and Investigating Officer Neetaram Zingarao Kumre P.W. 11 (Ex. 35). The prosecution also produced documentary evidence inter alia oral report lodged by prosecutrix date 20-10-1987 (Ex. 12), first information report registered on the basis of the said oral report on 20-10-1987 (Ex. 36), Medical Certificate dated 20-10-1987 (Ex. 15), panchanama of the spot of occurrence dated 20-10-1987 (Ex. 22), Medical Certificate dated 21-10-1987 (Ex. 31), Chemical Analyser's Report dated 17-5-1988 (Ex. 41) and various seizure memoranda.
5. Accused made his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and denied the allegation of the offence under Section 376 IPC and the incident as alleged by prosecution. He submitted that he has been falsely implicated by the prosecution.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the evidence on record held that the accused attempt to commit rape on the prosecutrix Satwaleela, and thereby has committed an offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. The trial Court negatived the prosecution case about the actual rape having been committed by the accused appellant on the person of prosecutrix Satwaleela.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the accused appellant urged before me that the trial Court has committed serious error of law in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC even when it acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that since no charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was framed against the accused appellant and once the trial Court came to the conclusion that offence under Section 376 has not been proved, it ought to have acquitted the accused and could not have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The learned counsel also submitted that the statement of prosecutrix Satwaleela suffers from material contradictiongs and is not believable. According to the learned counsel, the accused appellant has been falsely implicated and therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court deserves to be set aside by this Court in appeal.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted, that even when the offence under Section 376 IPC was not established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant and if it was established from record that accused appellant has attempted to commit rape, the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of prosecutrix P.W. 1 is believable so far as the incident of undressing her by the accused is concerned. Since the testimony has not been duly corroborated by medical evidence, the trial court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. But so far as attempt to rape is concerned, that is well established by the testimony of P.W. 1.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence on record. It would be seen from the medical examination conducted on 20-10-1987 vide Ex. 15 of the person of the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) that she had number of nail scratches on her body. Multiple nail scratches were found in between both breast area as well as over breast area. Nail scratches were also found over cheek right side 1" from right angle of mouth as well as over right clarical region. The blouse of the prosecutrix was found matted with soil, so also her backside. Her Lugda was found torn in many places. As regards examination of her private part, no external injury was found on her vaginal area and there was also no swelling in adjacent area. No evidence of semen was seen.
11. The prosecutrix was again examined on 21-10-1987 and lady doctor also found multiple abrasions over breast and buttocks and abrasions over right cheek and angle of mouth right side. On her internal examination, no injury was found over vagina cervix, no bleeding was found, no bloodstains were found on thighs or clothes and no injury were found on labia and vulva, In the said report, it was mentioned that there was no injury over the private parts of the prosecutrix and definite opinion about rape cannot be given.
12. From Chemical Analyser's Report (Ex. 41) it would be seen that the Chemical Analyser has reported that neither blood, nor semen is detected on Exhibits 1 to 7. That means that neither blood, nor semen was detected on the Sari, Hair and Jangya. In the results of the analysis, it was also observed that opinion about mixing of hair at Ex. 4 and 6 cannot be given, as the results are inconclusive. In the light of the aforesaid medical evidence and the chemical analyser's report, it the testimony of prosecutrix (P.W. 1) Smt. Satwaleela is screened, it can be said that prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt so far as committing of rape by the accused appellant on the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) is concerned. The testimony of prosecutrix (P.W. 1) to the extent that the accused had sexual intercourse with her without her consent cannot be said to have proved offence u/S. 376 IPC since her medical examination as well as the Chemical Analyser's report do not support her version that she was subjected to sexual intercourse at the time of incident as alleged. The trial Court which has considered the entire evidence on record in this connection and the findings arrived at by the trial Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence under Section 376 IPC appears to be well reasoned. However, the question is not that whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 376 IPC, but the question in the appeal, is whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC despite its finding that the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution against the accused.
13. Coming to the first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, first that once the trial Court acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC, in the absence of any charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused and could not have convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, it may be observed that this argument of the learned counsel is not having any merit. Section 222(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence, although the attempt is not separately charged. This means that if the main offence is not held to be proved and attempt to commit the main offence is proved by the evidence on record, it is not impermissible to the Court to convict the accused on the basis of the said evidence of an attempt to commit main offence, even though no separate charge for attempt to commit the offence has been framed. When the accused is charged of the main offence, he is well aware of the allegations and accusations against him relating to that offence, but if during the trial, evidence is wanting or lacking to convict the accused for the main offence, but the said evidence is sufficient to convict the accused for an attempt of that main offence, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 222, even in the absence of the separate charge, the Court is empowered to convict the accused for the attempt to commit the main offence. Such procedure cannot be said to cause any prejudice to the accused. The charge of attempt to commit an offence is implict in the charge of main offence and it is not open to the accused to raise grievance that since he has been acquitted of the main offence charged against him, he cannot be convicted for an offence of an attempt to commit such offence. All the facts relevant to commission of crime of an attempt to commit rape in the present case and the evidence relating to commission of an offence of an attempt to commit rape against accused was known to him and the said evidence and material operating against the accused for an offence to attempt to commit rape were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and for this reason also, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused by not framing separate charge under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In this view of the matter, non-framing of charge by prosecution under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was immaterial and of no consequence. When the appellant was already charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC and if the trial Court held that from the evidence which has come on record, it is proved that accused has attempted to commit rape on prosecutrix, it cannot be said that accused could not be convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. I, therefore, hold that accused could be convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC in the absence of specific charge under these sections when accused was already charged for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Now the question remains whether from the evidence which has come on record, it can be held that the accused has committed an attempt to commit rape on the prosecutrix (P.W. 1).
14. Satvaleela (P.W. 1) has given detailed version of the entire incident. She has testified that on the date of incident at about 10 to 11 a.m. while she was carrying tiffin for her husband to the field, on the way near the bank of tank, the accused came from behind, the caught the portion of her Sari, pulled her, dragged her inside bank of the tank, put her on the ground and removed her Sari from her person. He ran in naked condition to the field of her husband Jaiwantabai (P.W. 2) has stated that on the date of incident while she was going to her field at about 10 to 11 a.m. for collecting fuel wood, she heard some noise and so she looked around. She saw the accused and Sari was in his hand. She asked accused who was he and on that accused went back. When she started going back by the bank of the tank, she met Shantabai (P.W. 3). She has also stated that when they came on the spot, she found Sari lying there and Satvaleela (P.W. 1) was wearing Lungi. Similarly Shantabai (P.W. 3) has also made her statement to that effect. Confronted with her police statement, portion 'A', she admitted that the prosecutrix told her that her Sari was completly removed from her person. Maroti (P.W. 9) has also in his deposition stated that he saw prosecutrix Satvaleela running in a naked condition to the field of her husband. Presence of Jaiwantabai (P.W. 2) and Shantabai (P.W. 3) to the place stated by them in their deposition does not appear to be improbable. In the statement of Satvaleela (P.W. 1) prosecutrix to the effect that while she was carrying tiffin of her husband to his field at the bank of tank, the accused came from behind, caught the portion of her Sari, dragged her inside the bank of the tank, put her on the ground and removed her Sari from her person. It is seen from her medical examination that there were number of nail scratches found in between both breast area, over breast area, over cheek right side from right angle of mouth and over right clavical region and also that her blouse was matted with soil and backside matted with Chikhal (mud). The testimony of prosecutrix Satvaleela (P.W. 1) to that extent is believable and duly corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the testimony of Jaiwantabai (P.W. 2), Shantabai (P.W. 3) and Maroti (P.W. 9). Minor contradictions pointed out by the defence are not material and does not make the testimony of these witnesses unbelievable to that extent. I, therefore, find myself in full agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court that the accused attempted to commit rape on prosecutrix Satvaleela (P.W. 1), and the conviction of the accused for the said offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC deserves to be maintained and does not call for any interference in this appeal. Conviction of the accused appellant, therefore, for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC for attempting to commit rape on prosecutrix Satvaleela (P.W. 1) is upheld.
15. Adverting now to sentence, it may be observed that the offence of rape having not been found proved and accused having been held guilty for the offence of Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, in my view, interest of justice will be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years awarded by the trial Court is reduced to three years and which I hereby reduce.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in its judgment dated 28-8-1991 in Sessions Case No. 80/88 State of Maharashtra v. Kishor Raghunath Shrirame is maintained. However, sentence awarded by the said Court to the accused appellant is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to the authorities concerned to serve out the remaining sentence. Order accordingly.
17. Order accordingly.