Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as under :-

(i) The complainant is the mother of the victim girl. She resides with her two children, husband, father in law and brother in law. The accused is residing in the same building. The victim girl complained of abdominal pain. She was taken to hospital.

Sonography was conducted. After sonography the Doctor opined that the victim is pregnant of six weeks;

(ii) Complainant and her husband had a talk with the victim. She disclosed that she had been to the house of the accused to watch T.V programme. At that time the accused sent his daughter out for some work. Accused removed her clothes and subjected her to penetrative sexual assault. The accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody otherwise he would kill her and her family members. Accused used to call her in the house whenever his married daughter is out of house. Accused used to send his other daughter out of house for work and repeat the act of sexual assault;

7. Learned APP has relied upon following decisions :-

          (a)      The State of Rajasthan Vs. Om Prakash
                   (2002)5-SCC-745;

          (b)      Sunil Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
                   (2017)4-SCC-393;

          (c)      Ganesan Vs. State (Tamil Nadu)
                   (2020)10-SCC-573;

          (d)      Dashrath s/o Hiraman Johare vs. The State of

Maharashtra and anr. - 2021-ALL MR (Cri)-3598.

8. Charge was framed vide order dated 3rd December 2015. The case of prosecution is that accused had committed penetrative sexual assault upon victim. She stated that accused resides adjacent to her house. During Diwali of 2014 she had been to the house of accused to play. The wife of accused was out for work. His younger daughter Pooja was at home. Accused told her to go out of house. The married daughter of the accused had gone out. Accused removed her clothes. Accused threatened her. He penetrated his private part in the private part of victim. Thereafter she was suffering from abdominal pain. She was taken to doctor for check up. The doctor advised sonography. She was taken for sonography to the hospital. After that the doctor had opined that she was pregnant of six weeks. She disclosed about the sexual assault by 7 of 18 2.Apeal.192.2018.doc accused. Her parents approached police. Her statement was recorded on 19th February 2015. Police had taken her to Sassoon Hospital. She was examined by doctor. Her statement was recorded by Magistrate. Her date of birth is 9 th July 2003. She was 12 years old at the time of incident. In the cross examination she stated that she used to play with her friends in the building. Thereafter she volunteered that there are no girls of her age in the building. In her statement before Magistrate it is not mentioned that Pooja was sent out by accused and Deepali along with her children had gone to her parents house. She did not state in her statement to the police that accused had closed the door of hall and she had questioned the accused as to what he was doing with her. The word "frighten" is not mentioned in her statement. She had disclosed the incident to Dr.Shilpa Ekke in presence of her parents. Till she returned home from hospital she did not disclose anything to her parents. She denied that she was not pregnant from the accused and that she was pregnant from the member of her maternal uncle's family and to save prestige of family, she lodged false report. She also denied that she gave statement to police and Magistrate at the instance of her mother.

10. PW-2 Vaishali Umesh Deshmukh is the mother of victim girl. She has stated that accused resides adjacent to her house along with his family. Her daughter was suffering from abdominal pain on 17 th February 2015. She was taken to hospital of Dr.Shilpa Ekke who advised them sonography. Thereafter they went for sonography at Bharti Hospital. After sonography doctor had opined that victim girl is pregnant of six weeks. She spoke to the victim girl and at that time victim disclosed about penetrative sexual assault committed by accused. Medical examination of victim was conducted. The date of birth of victim is 9 th July 2003. She had provided birth certificate issued by Deputy Registrar, Registration of Birth and Death, Pune. She was cross examined by advocate for accused . However, her cross examination has not resulted in any damage to the prosecution case. She stated that though victim had abdominal pain for one week, she did not take her to hospital. They were consulting Dr.Shilpa Ekke since last 2 to 3 years. Dr.Ekke had not prepared the case papers of victim girl. She denied that from 25th December 2014 to 5th January 2015 the victim girl and the witness had been to the house of her brother at village Tambat. During the medical examination of victim girl she had given the history to the doctor. She denied that she purposely disclosed the name of accused while providing history.

11. PW-3 Dr.Vishal Patil was attached to Bharti Hospital. He stated that he had examined witness girl on 18 th February 2015. She was referred by Dr.Ekke for sonography. The age of the victim 9 of 18 2.Apeal.192.2018.doc on the date of sonography was 11 years 7 months. After sonography he came to the conclusion that victim was pregnant of 6 weeks and 4 days on the date of sonography. Accordingly he issued report of examination under his signature. In the cross examination he deposed that he has not brought letter issued by Dr.Ekke. On 18th February 2015 he had conducted several sonographies. The age of patient is mentioned in the report of examination on the basis of information given by patient. There is nothing in the cross examination to doubt the version of this witness.