IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3676/2008 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 717/2008 (Sk. Javed @ Bablu Sk. Kurban .vs. State of Maharashtra) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3790/2008 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728/2008 (Praful Narisngrao Padelwar .vs. State of Maharashtra) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3963/2008 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 691/2008 (Rammurti Bapurao Bominwar .vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 9 th JUNE, 2009 Heard S/Shri Dhatrak, Apurv De & Dhobe, Advocates, for the Applicants and Shri Mandpe, APP, for respondent State. All these applications are arising out of the judgment of conviction of the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. and also under Sections 448, 450 & 457 of the I.P.C. Original accused No. 4 is convicted for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. There is no appeal against his conviction as it appears that he has been sentenced for only fine of Rs. 500/-. These applications are for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the evidence of the prosecutrix Sujata is not trustworthy and the same can not be relied upon for basing the conviction of the applicants without any corroboration, considering the admission in cross examination of the witness none else than her husband i.e. P.W. 2 Kapil that the boys used to visit his house in his absence frequently and therefore, neighbours were not taking cognizance about what is happening in his house. There can not be any doubt that if the allegations of the prosecutrix are accepted, the offence lavelled against the applicants is serious. The question is whether the evidence of prosecutrix can be accepted without any material corroboration on record. Here is the case where the incident is of night. It appears to have been committed by entering into the house by removing roof tiles. The removal of tiles appears to be established by way of spot panchnama, as, such removal was noticed at that time. The medical evidence, however, is some what shaky. It appears that no external injuries were found on the private part of the prosecutrix Sujata, though in the evidence and report such injuries were alleged. The learned trial Judge has considered this aspect also and has given reasons for coming to the conclusion that even in absence of noticing such injuries by the Medical Officer, the evidence of prosecutrix can be accepted for basing the conviction, inasmuch as the prosecutrix was examined medically after considerable lapse of time that too by the male Medical Officer, though it was bounden duty of the prosecution to refer prosecutrix to the lady Medical Officer. The view taken by the learned trial Judge does not seem to be impossible or perverse, ex facie. In these circumstances, it is not possible to suspend the sentence by releasing the applicants on bail, though there is contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that they were on bail during the trial and they have not abused the same. In sequel, these applications are rejected. However, with a liberty to move afresh if these appeals are not decided within the period of six months from today. The hearing of the appeals is expedited. The paper book be immediately prepared. If the paper book is ready, list the appeals for final hearing in the week commencing from 6th July, 2009 Applications disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit