NARASAPPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
R.R. Bhole, J. -
(1.) THE accused, who is in jail, is alleged to have kidnapped a twelve -year old girl Shobhavati Sitaram as well as attempted to rape her. He is acquitted of both these offences but he is convicted of the alternative charge framed against him under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. He is alleged to have indulged in immoral behaviour with the said Shobhavati between January 10 and January 14, 1971 at Chembur, Greater Bombay.
(2.) GIRL Shobhavati was staying which her parents and brothers in the hutment area and because her mother fell ill, she had to do all the domestic work at that time. The accused was working in a lunch home near their hut and therefore they came to know each other. The incident took place on January 10, 1971 and it is alleged that when the girl's mother was in hospital because she was ill and when her father was out, she left her house. The accused met her near the hotel and he asked her where she was going. Because she said she was going out, therefore he accompanied her. He then took her to Chembur. They both spent five nights on a footpath there. It is alleged that on the next night he indulged in immoral behaviour with her. He was threatening her and abusing her and telling her to go with him in the Maidan in the tall grass so that he could have sexual intercourse with her. He took her to the said Maidan but she did not allow him to have sexily intercourse. During the course of the investigation semen stains were found not only on the spot in between two legs of salwar worn by the girl but' also on the chaddi worn by the accused. The accused denied having committed any offence, but admitted having taken her to Chembur. His defence is that she met him and told him that her parents were beating her; that she did not like to stay with them; that she told him that she would like to go with him and therefore he went along with her and took her to Chembur and stayed there. He then returned after four days and brought her father to the place. The learned Sessions Judge after considering all the evidence found that the prosecution have neither established the offence punishable under section 366, Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under section 376, Indian Penal Code against the accused. He, however, found that the accused had committed the offence punishable under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. He sentenced the accused to one year's rigorous imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence therefore is challenged here.
(3.) WE are not here concerned with all the evidence led by the prosecution ; we are here concerned with only the evidence of the girl Shobhavati because the other witnesses speak of the offence of kidnapping and rape. Shobhavati says that the accused had accompanied her to the footpath in Chembur and was making overtures and asking her to have sexual intercourse with him. He was telling her to go to the Maidan nearby where there was tall grass so that he could have sexual intercourse with her there. He was also abusing her and threatening her. She, however, did not allow him the liberty. There is also the report of the Chemical Analyser to show that semen stains were found not only on the salwar worn by the girl but also on the chaddi of the accused. The semen stains were human and of the same group. The point that arises here for consideration is whether all these circumstances prove or do not prove that the accused had committed the offence under section 57 of the Bombay Children Art.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.