Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul @ Kalyan S/O. Fakira Raut And ... on 28 January, 2020
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M.G. Sewlikar
1 Application 7075 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
930 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7075 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
RAHUL @ KALYAN S/O. FAKIRA RAUT AND OTHERS
----
Shri.M.M. Nerlikar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
applicant.
----
Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
Date: 28 JANUARY 2020
ORDER:
1) The proceeding is fled by the State for grant of leave to fle appeal against the judgment and order of Special Case (Atrocity) No.2/2015 which was pending in the Court of the Special Judge Jalna. The Special Court is created for trial of ofences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Seen the record of evidence. ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:33:00 :::
2 Application 7075 of 2017
2) It appears that the charge-sheet was fled against as many as 11 persons. Accused Nos.2,3 and 8 were shown as absconding accused and the case was tried against the remaining accused. The prosecutrix was married woman. She was having issues also. Her husband was dead and so she was earning her livelihood by selling brooms in local market in Jalna. She became acquainted with accused No.1 and then accused No.1 started representing that she can make more money by working at other place. Initially the prosecutrix showed reluctance to leave Jalna but when accused No.1 insisted she went with him. The accused No.1 took her frst to Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh). It is her contention that on the way the accused No.1 made her to drink some substance due to which she became unconscious and then the accused No.1 raped her. It is her contention that in Madhya Pradesh she was kept in a room and there she was sold by the accused No.1 to accused No.4. From Madhya Pradesh then she was taken to Alampur (Rajasthan). It is her allegation that it was told to her that she was sold by her husband and by her uncle. At Alampur she was raped by many persons. She somehow escaped and when she was boarding a bus ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:33:00 ::: 3 Application 7075 of 2017 persons from Rajasthan again intercepted her but there was some chaos and some persons contacted police and informed the incident. Police of Rajasthan then rescued her but no complaint was registered and she was sent back to Jalna. At Jalna she frst made inquiry about accused No.1 and then gave report to police of aforesaid nature. After completing investigation charge sheet of aforesaid nature was fled.
3) The evidence given before the trial court shows that there is evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) of aforesaid nature. There is evidence of a lady constable from Rajasthan (PW-9) to show that Rajasthan Police had sent her from Rajasthan to Jalna. There is evidence of witnesses like PW-10 and PW-12, the witnesses from Madhya Pradesh, showing that accused No.1 had taken the prosecutrix to Madhya Pradesh, she was kept there in a room and accused No.1 sold the prosecutrix to accused No.4.
4) There is evidence of aforesaid nature but it appears that the trial court has not believed the ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:33:00 ::: 4 Application 7075 of 2017 prosecutrix and all the accused who faced the trial are acquitted. It is a fact that such incidents are many and girls and ladies of this State are taken to Rajasthan as the ratio of female child birth in that State is not that high, some persons of Rajasthan are virtually purchasing ladies and many of them are sent from Maharashtra. The aforesaid evidence shows that the prosecutrix was taken from Maharashtra frst to Madhya Pradesh by accused No.1. There she was sold by accused No.1 to accused No.4 to make money. And then respondent No.4 made money by selling the prosecutrix to persons from Rajasthan. When there is evidence of aforesaid nature this Court holds that some inferences are possible at least against accused Nos.1 and 4. In view of nature of evidence against accused Nos.1 and 4 this Court holds that there is good arguable case to the State at least as against accused Nos.1 and 4.
5) So the application in respect of accused Nos.1 and 4 (respondent Nos.1 and 2) is allowed. Leave is granted to the State to fle appeal as against respondent Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 4).
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:33:00 :::
5 Application 7075 of 2017
6) This Court has granted leave to fle appeal and reasons for the same are given. For the same reasons the appeal as against respondent Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 4) is admitted. Comply the provisions of section 390 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The proceeding as against remaining accused is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
rsl
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2020 23:33:00 :::