1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.228 OF 2008 Kailash S/o.Shivaji Kale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, learned counsel for the applicant. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent no.1 Mr.V.D.Salunke, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 13/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present revision application, the original complainant has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.2/2008, dated 18/08/2008 as against the order of acquittal, no appeal was preferred by the State/Complainant before the Court of Session. 2. Considering the limited scope in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, the revision is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. On the basis of complaint filed by one Kailash, the brother of the victim Swati, an offence was registered u/s. 376 of the IPC on 30/09/2005 against the second respondent and for the said offence, he 2 was tried before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. On the basis of this complaint, after the investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed and thereafter in turn the case was committed to Court of Sessions and was numbered as Sessions Case No.2/2008. It appears that to support the case of prosecution, in all 7 witnesses are examined by the prosecution including the prosecutrix PW No.6 and medical officer Dr.Aarti Pawar, P.W.No.4. As per the medical officer, the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years. In the premise, the evidence given by P.WNo.4, the medical officer plays very vital role in the session case. In para no.10 of the judgment, the learned Trial Court has discussed the evidence given by the Medical Officer. In clear unambiguous words, the evidence given by P.W.No.4 was discussed and analyzed by the Trial Court as it is opined by the Medical Officer that there are no marks of violence found on the person of the victim prosecutrix. It is further opined that there are no evidence of sexual abuse found on the person of the prosecutrix. This opinion given by the medical officer play very vital role as the prosecutrix was examined by the Medical Officer immediately after lodging of the complaint within some hours after the correspondence of the incident. Thus from medical evidence, the case of the prosecution about the rape on the prosecutrix at the hands of 2 nd respondent do not stand. 4. Apart from the medical evidence, the evidence of P.W.No.6 prosecutrix is also not free from doubt as according to the story narrated by P.W.No.6, the incident repeated on 2 consecutive days. After the alleged incident on the first day it was reported to one P.W.No.2 Renuka, but she has not disclosed that incident to any of the family 3 members when parents of P.W.No.6 were well present at the residence. It is tried to urge before the Trial Court to remain intact of the image of family reputation the incident was not disclosed anywhere. This statement can not be accepted if the disclosure will go out of the family, then there is every apprehension that there will be defamation or damage to the reputation of the family, if the incidence is disclosed outside the family but not to the members of the family. Apart from it, the admission given by the prosecutrix that she is giving the evidence before the Court as she was asked to give the evidence as told by her family members and most crucial admission given by her in her cross- examination that the FIR lodged in the police station was not narrated by her, but was narrated by her father and recorded in the name of her brother on which simply she has signed. If this is the evidence given by PW No.6 then it can not be said that the Trial Court has committed an error and not scrutinized the evidence of all the material witnesses and appreciated the evidence perversely. In the premise, the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Trial Court did not require any interference at the hands of this Court in the revisional jurisdiction u/s. 401(3) of The Cr.P.C. Thus the revision sans any merit and require following order : O R D E R Revision stands dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.rev.appl.228-08 4