Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Manpritsingh Kashmirsing Gill vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 September, 2019

Author: A. M. Badar

Bench: A. M. Badar

                                                              9-APPA-973-2018.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.973 OF 2018
                                   IN
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2018

 MANPRITSINGH KASHMIRSING GILL                        )...APPLICANT

          V/s.

 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                             )...RESPONDENT

 Ms.Pracheta Rathod, Advocate for the Applicant.

 Mr.Amit Palkar, APP for the Respondent - State.


                               CORAM    :    A. M. BADAR, J.

                               DATE     :    30th SEPTEMBER 2019


 P.C. :

 1                This is an application for suspension of sentence and

 releasing the applicant/convicted accused on bail during pendency

 of the appeal filed by him. The applicant/convicted accused has

 been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 376(D) read

 with 120B, 377 read with 120B, 366 read with 120B, 354 read

 with 120B, 341, 342 read with 120B, 323 read with 120B, 506(II)

 read with 120B as well as under 120B of the Indian Penal Code

 avk                                                                     1/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                                  9-APPA-973-2018.doc


 (IPC). As all sentences imposed on the applicant / accused are

 directed to run concurrently, it is not necessary to put on record

 all sentences imposed on each and every count on the applicant /

 accused.            Suffice   to   mention   that   highest        sentence         of

 imprisonment imposed on the applicant / accused is for 20 years

 for the offence punishable under Section 376(D) read with 120B

 of the IPC with a further direction to him to pay fine of

 Rs.25,000/-, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

 1 year.



 2                Case of the prosecution in brief is thus :

 (a)       The victim of the crime in question i.e. PW1 is a rag picker,

           who used to come to Mumbai occasionally for earning her

           livelihood.         She is permanent resident of Nanded.

           According to the prosecution case, about three months

           prior to the incident, she came to Mumbai for earning her

           livelihood, as her elder son Honaji, aged about 20 years,

           started assaulting her at her native place. At Mumbai, she

           used to stay in a tempo parked in front of Hill Residency at


 avk                                                                        2/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                    ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                              9-APPA-973-2018.doc


           Amar Nagar. The incident allegedly took place in the night

           intervening 20th September 2013 and 21st September 2013.

           The prosecutrix/PW1 lodged report thereof on 21st

           September 2013. She alleged that at about 3.00 a.m. of

           that night, she woke up when a vehicle carrying milk came.

           At about that time, 5 to 6 boys peeped inside the tempo.

           She named those persons as Vishal, Ajay, Kalu, Wasim and

           Dastagir, by stating that she came to know names of some

           other boys as they were calling each other by names. She

           claimed that she was knowing Vishal since prior to this

           incident. According to the prosecution, then, these accused

           persons dragged the prosecutrix/PW1 out of the tempo,

           took her in the vicinity and committed rape as well as

           carnal intercourse against the order of nature with her.



 (b)       The prosecution/PW1 further alleged that then Vishal and

           Kalu by a motorcycle took her to the forest area in the

           vicinity. At that place, two other boys came. All accused

           persons then committed rape on her, so also carnal



 avk                                                                    3/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                                      9-APPA-973-2018.doc


           intercourse,         against   the    order      of     nature.            The

           prosecutrix/PW1 added name of one more person "Veeru"

           at this stage.



 (c)       After lodging the First Information Report (FIR) by the

           prosecutrix/PW1, within two days her statement under

           Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded by the

           learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the request of the

           police.         The prosecutrix/PW1 maintained her version

           before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, so far as the

           first part of the incident is concerned. However, so far as

           second part of taking her to the forest area is concerned,

           she remained silent so far as making a phone call and

           calling two persons by accused Vishal.



 3                Heard        the   learned    counsel     appearing          for     the

 applicant/convicted accused. She submitted that neither in the

 FIR nor in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of

 Criminal Procedure, the prosecutrix/PW1 has referred name of the



 avk                                                                            4/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                        ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                                      9-APPA-973-2018.doc


 applicant/convicted accused. She has not attributed any role to

 the applicant/convicted accused in the crime in question. It is

 further       argued          that,   however,   for   the      first     time,       the

 prosecutrix/PW1 while in the witness box had deposed that after

 commission of gang rape on her by other accused including main

 accused Vishal, a phone call was made by main accused Vishal to

 somebody and then immediately the applicant/convicted accused,

 one Hamal and co-accused Mahesh came and they also committed

 rape on her. Thereafter, she was taken to some jungle area. In her

 cross-examination at paragraphs 41 and 43, these omissions were

 specifically put to her. The prosecutrixPW1 was unable to explain

 as to why these facts were not disclosed by her either to the

 Investigator or to the learned Magistrate, who had recorded her

 statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.



 4                PW41          is Investigating Officer Mrs.Sarita Bhosale,

 Assistant Police Inspector, attached to Police Station Matunga.

 She had recorded the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix/PW1. During

 cross-examination at paragraph 30, PW41 Mrs.Sarita Bhosale,


 avk                                                                            5/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                        ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                                             9-APPA-973-2018.doc


 Assistant Police Inspector, has categorically accepted the fact that

 the      prosecutrix/PW1             had      not     stated       that       the     present

 applicant/convicted accused had committed rape on her.



 5                According to case of prosecution, gang rape on the

 prosecutrix/PW1                commenced           from     3.00      a.m.       and        after

 commission of rape on her by Ajay, Kalu, Wasim and Dastagir,

 Vishal had made a telephonic call to somebody.                              In the witness

 box, by way of omission, the prosecutrix/PW1 has named the

 applicant/convicted accused as one of the persons, who came in

 response to that call.               Telephonic calls exchanged between the

 accused        persons         was    the     reason       for     conviction         of     the

 applicant/convicted accused and the resultant sentence.                                      For

 proving exchange of phone calls between accused persons, the

 prosecution has examined Yogesh Rajapurkar, Nodal Officer with

 Bharti        Airtel          Limited.      Cell     phone          number           of      the

 applicant/convicted accused is reported to be 8454952301.

 Evidence of PW37 Yogesh Rajapurkar, Nodal Officer, does not

 show that main accused Vishal had made a telephonic call on this


 avk                                                                                   6/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                               ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                                 9-APPA-973-2018.doc


 cell phone number belonging to the applicant/convicted accused

 either at 3.00 a.m. or prior to that. Similarly, evidence of this

 Nodal Officer does not show that even after 3.00 a.m. of the day

 of the incident, there was telephonic call from main accused

 Vishal to the present applicant/convicted accused.



 6                Convicted co-accused Mahesh Maragaje, against whom

 evidence of gang rape has come, by way of omission, is already

 directed to be released on bail vide order dated 27 th September

 2017 passed in Criminal Application No.405 of 2017, by noting

 that in case of more than one accused persons, there is tendency

 of putting embellishment and roping in as many as persons as it

 can be.



 7                Considering   the    foregoing    reasons,           applicant/

 convicted accused Manpritsingh Gill is also entitled for same

 treatment. As such, the order :

                                      ORDER
 i)       The application is allowed.


 avk                                                                       7/8




::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019                   ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::
                                                               9-APPA-973-2018.doc


 ii)      Substantive sentence imposed on the applicant /accused is

suspended and he is directed to be released on bail, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two surety in like amount.

iii) As a condition of this order, the applicant/accused should report the concerned Police Station on every first Monday of each calendar month, in between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

iv) The applicant / accused should not commit any crime during pendency of the appeal filed by him.

v) The application is, accordingly, disposed off.

(A. M. BADAR, J.) avk 8/8 ::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 02:37:49 :::