1 Cri.Appeal 28/1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.28/1993 1) The State of Maharashtra = APPELLANT VERSUS Jawan Namdeo Chavan Age: 26 Yrs., occu. Agril. R/o Nanaj, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar. = RESPONDENT Mr.VD Godbharale, APP for State Mr.VS Bedre, Adv. for Respondent/Accused. ----- CORAM : A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 8th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:- A.H.JOSHI,J.) 1) The Respondent/accused was tried in Sessions Case No.59/1990 in the court of 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The charge was for committing rape on Smt. Kausalyabai. 2) The prosecution case is based on evidence of the prosecutrix and one eye-witness – Latabai Namdeo Gaikwad. Said Latabai has turned hostile. The entire prosecution case is, therefore, based on oral evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence brought on record. 2 Cri.Appeal 28/1993 3) The medical evidence does not prima facie favour the prosecution. The medical opinion reveals no injuries to the private part and it further reveals that the victim being married woman, having two children, was habitual to sexual intercourse. There was no injury found on her back, waist etc. 4) The Chemical Analyst's opinion was sought on the aspect of blood, semen-stains and spermatozoa on the vaginal swab. Opinion of Chemical Analyst, which is at page 114, is adverse to existence of sperm or spermatozoa on the vaginal swab. This evidence has, therefore, ruled out sexual intercourse, much less forcible sexual assault. 5) Therefore, the case was totally based on testimony of the prosecutrix. The eye-witness was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution. PW No.7 deposed that he had seen the prosecutrix weeping on the place, where she claims that she was raped. 6) In the given situation, though the learned Trial Judge has rendered the judgment of conviction of the accused, however, the Appellate Court had set it aside. 3 Cri.Appeal 28/1993 7) As we see, it was a case of solitary testimony, unsupported by medical examination and opinion of Chemical Analyst. 8) In this background, the view taken by the Appellate court, acquitting the respondent/ accused, is most possible and probable view which could be taken. 9) We are, therefore, of the view that the matter does not deserve reversal of the judgment of acquittal. 10) The appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. sd/- sd/- (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) bdv/ Authenticated copy (BD VADNERE,PS)