SAHEBRAO DEVIDAS GUDDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of the appellantsaccused, who have been convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Penal Code').

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix'R' was married with one Gulab and she had a son and a daughter from that marriage. As her husband had contracted a second marriage, 'R' was residing with her father and brother in the field of one Sukhdeo Raut. She was working in that field and was acquainted with persons of village Dongar Yawali. The accused were hailing from the same village and 'R' was also acquainted with them. According to the prosecution, on 04.05.1996, at about 9.00 p.m., when 'R' was going from the field to the house of Sukhdeo Raut, she observed that accused no.3Kisan Vighe was driving an autorickshaw in which accused no.1Sahebrao Gudadhe, accused no.2Manohar Thakare and accused no.4Balya @ Ramesh Bhende were sitting. On being asked by the accused as to where she was going, 'R' replied that she was going to the house of Sukhdeo Raut. Accused no.1 thereafter got down from the autorickshaw and by pressing her mouth put her in the autorickshaw. The other accused held her and hence 'R' was not able to rescue herself. She was taken to an agricultural field under a mango tree. Accused no.1 removed her saree and spread it on the ground after which accused no.4 caught her one hand while accused no.3 caught her other hand. Thereafter, all the accused committed rape on her. 'R' could not free herself because of the force used by the accused. She was threatened that if she disclosed the incident, she would be killed. 'R' thereafter put on her saree and blouse and the accused left her near the village. In the same condition, she went to the house of Sukhdeo Raut and disclosed the incident to him. Sukhdeo Raut asked her to stay at his house and told her to submit the report on the next day. Accordingly, she approached the concerned Police Station on 05.05.1996 and lodged the report at about 1.40 p.m. The crime was accordingly registered and necessary investigation was undertaken.

(3.) Shri Sumit Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the evidence on record was not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There were various inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution. The field where the prosecutrix was staying was owned by Sukhdeo Raut who was on inimical terms with the accused and therefore, at his instance, they had been implicated. It was submitted that the medical report of 'R' did not indicate any injuries on her private parts and therefore, the story of the prosecution that the act of rape was committed by all the accused was not probable. There was also a delay in lodging the report inasmuch as, the alleged incident occurred at 9.00 p.m. on 04.05.1996 while the report was lodged at about 1.40 p.m. on 05.05.1996. The seizure of the saree has not been duly proved nor was it identified by the prosecutrix. The report of the Chemical Analyzer also did not contain any material that would connect the accused with the crime in question. Though it was the case of the prosecution that 'R' was taken in the autorickshaw and had passed through the village, 'R' did not shout for any help which rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. The version of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence and when that version is considered along with the evidence on record, it could not be said that a case for conviction of the appellants had been made out. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Banti alias Balvinder Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992) CriLJ 715 and Sampad alias Srustidhar Mallick & another Versus State, (2001) CriLJ 79