Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. In contrast, Ms Rane with Ms Dabholkar, the learned APPs have made the following submissions.

1. At the first place, the prosecution has proved that the victim was missing since 12/10/2012, because, despite search for 2-3 days, she was not found. Since PW-11 was busy in the search of the victim, he could not promptly file the missing complaint. PW-11 was not much literate. He was doing labour work. As such, no adverse inference is called for, for not filing the missing complaint; the delay in filing the ADR Report (Exh.77) by PW-11; and filing of the Report (Exh.77) by him.

27. The evidence of PW-11 indicates that, despite search, the victim was not found till 10/10/2012, nor the inquiry with the relatives provided any clue about her. However, as admitted by PW- 11, he was at home from 12/10/2012 to 15/10/2012. He did not work during that period. But, on 16/10/2012 PW-11 went to Karad, for labour work. The victim was just aged 19 year. Yet, till 16/10/2012, PW-11 did not find time nor did he try to even file a missing complaint of the victim. The evidence indicates that PW-11 had the contact number of PW-1. However, till 16/10/2012, PW-11 did not inform the PW-1 that the victim was missing. The reason behind not taking such steps is not explained from the material on record. However, all this is not sufficient to disbelieve the fact that, the victim went missing from 12/10/2012, because she was later found dead in the Well and her body was decomposed. As per the expert opinion of PW-13, the victim had died about three days before.