Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In her cross examination PW8 denied the suggestion that there were no blood stains on the nicker when PW9 was taken to the civil hospital. The nicker was given to the police when police came to the hospital of Dr. Bafna. She went to the police station on 08.03.1997 at about 11.00 to 11.30 am to lodged the complaint. She stated that before going to the police station she went to the hospital of Dr. Bafna. Dr Bafna was telling her to lodge the complaint to the police. It is stated that since her daughter (PW9) was not feeling well there was delay in lodging the complaint. She further stated that the accused is residing in their house at the upper foor. She did not visit the spot of incident after narration of the alleged incident by PW9. She further stated that one person was taking classes in her house (wada), but she does not know his name was Mr. Deore. She further stated that mother of accused is cousin sister of father-in-law i.e. Dwarkanath. The mother of accused is suffering from polio. On the date of incident, accused, his handicapped mother and others were residing in their house (wada). It appears that the defence gave suggestion during the recording of evidence about whether rent from the accused is recovered or not.

25. The prosecution had examined Bhalchandra Deokute (PW3) who was the panch for the seizure of clothes of accused. He deposed before the Court that he did not seen the accused in the police station. He was told about seizure of clothes of the accused. One Shirt, one pant and underwear was shown to him. Police prepared and he signed on it. Other panch Satish also signed on the said panchnama. He admits in his cross examination that he did not put any mark on the clothes. The article shown to him before the Court did not bear any mark put by him. He has not seen any injury on the person of accused, since he has not seen the accused at the time of panchnama. He further deposed that the seized clothes are in the possession of police. Therefore, it is clear from his deposition that the accused was not present in the police station Bhagyawant Punde, PA 20/25 APEAL-475-2001.doc and his clothes were seized by the police and only the clothes were shown to PW3. It appears that necessary procedure for seizure of clothes of the accused was not followed by the police. There is also discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses about how many cots were there at the place of incident. It has also come in the evidence of PW8 that at the relevant time mother of accused was suffering from 'polio' and she was not in a position to walk. The certifcate at Exhibit-26 mentions that 'Smegma present'. The presence of smegma upon examination of penis of accused is one of the sign that, he might have not committed forceful intercourse in view of 'smegma' was present on his penis. Otherwise in case of forceful intercourse, smegma would not have been present on the private part of the accused.

26. To sum up, it is admitted in the cross examination by PW8 that, when the police made inquiry about the incident with the PW9, she did not narrate the incident to the police in the hospital of Dr. Bafna and thereafter there was no inquiry made by the police with the prosecutirx. PW8 also admitted in the cross examination that she did not visit the spot/room wherein the alleged incident had taken place and further the mother of the accused at the relevant time was suffering from polio and she is cousin of father-in-