( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2009 Sanjay Chabu Tadavi .. Appellant Age. 28 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Vadati,Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri C.R. Deshpande i/b. Shri S.I. Nandode, Advocate for the appellant. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 16.11.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused person who is convicted by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, while deciding Sessions Case No. 50 of 2007, on 19.06.2009, whereby the appellant is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 451 of the I.P.C. For offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ( 2 ) seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For offence punishable under Section 451 of the I.P.C., the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly stated, it is prosecution case that on 15th August, 2007, the prosecutrix was at her house. Her husband went to work at about 7.00 a.m. When the prosecutrix alone was at her house, the accused came in her house at about 8.00 a.m. and caught her waist from behind. She raised shouts. Immediately, the accused gagged her mouth, slapped her, made her to fall down and committed rape on her. While the accused was on her person, the husband of the prosecutrix came. He saw the accused on the person of the prosecutrix. On seeing husband of the prosecutrix, the accused put on his clothes and ran away. P.W.2-husband of the prosecutrix chased the accused, but he was not found. The prosecutrix sustained abrasion on her back and left hand. She said that the accused had given her threats of killing, if she shouted. Her anklet was removed and bangles were broken in the ( 3 ) incident. 3. According to the prosecution, after above said incident, the prosecutrix and her husband went to the Police Patil of the village and informed the incident. They wanted to go to Adawad where police station is situated. At about 1 to 1.30 noon, the husband of the prosecutrix collected money for fare for going to Adawad and then they went to the police station. The prosecutrix lodged complaint, which was registered on that day at about 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and the Medical Officer examined her. On the next day, spot panchanama was drawn. Clothes of the accused and the prosecutrix were attached. Both were sent for medical examination to the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon. Attached articles and medical samples were sent to Chemical Analyzer. Police recorded statements of the witnesses and ultimately sent charge-sheet. 4. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses. The Trial Court considered the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this judgment and order, which is challenged in this appeal. ( 4 ) 5. The main evidence is of the prosecutrix, who is examined at Exh.12. She stated that at about 8 a.m. she was in the house. Her husband, who was working as agricultural labourer, had gone out. When she was doing household work, the accused came from behind and caught her waist. The prosecutrix raised shouts. The accused gave slaps to her and made her to fall down on the floor and then raped her. When the husband of the prosecutrix came home, he saw the accused lying on the person of the prosecutrix. On seeing husband of the prosecutrix, the accused ran away. Her husband tried to catch the accused, but he could not succeed. The prosecutrix sustained abrasion on her back. Her bangles and anklet were broken. Along with her husband, she went to Police Patil and informed the incident. She proved her complaint at Exh.13, which is reproduced above. According to her, police sent her to hospital. She was examined. Her clothes namely, peticot, blouse and saree were attached. She further explained that on relevant day of incident, they had no money for going to Adawad for lodging complaint and therefore only after they got money from master of husband of the prosecutrix, namely, Kailash Dhangar, they went to Adawad. So, it was the ( 5 ) explanation for the delay. It is not disputed that the prosecutrix and her husband were agricultural labourers. 6. In the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it is admitted that P.W.3-Sangita was maternal aunt of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has one daughter and one son. She admitted that there was incident of quarrel between her son and the son of the accused. It is also admitted that on the Eastern side of the hut, there is place for tying of cattle of a Kathewadi person. On the Northern side of her house, there are three huts and family members of one Lalsing Pawara are residing in said huts, but distance is not brought on record between those huts and the hut of the prosecutrix. The defence is of total denial. It is suggested that no such incident had occurred. The prosecutrix also admitted that her house consists of sticks (Kud) and what is going on inside the hut was visible from outside. 7. The evidence of prosecutrix was supported by her husband examined at Exh.14. The prosecutrix was 27 years of age, when the deposition was recorded. The incident took place two years prior to the deposition. The husband of the ( 6 ) prosecutrix also stated same story. He said that at about 7 a.m. he went to the agricultural work and came back at about 8.00 a.m. At that time he noticed the accused in his house. The accused had gagged mount of the prosecutrix and was committing sexual intercourse. On seeing him the accused closed chain of his pant and started running. He also chased the accused, but the accused entered inside his house and closed the door from inside. 8. It is argued before this Court that in the normal circumstances the husband of the prosecutrix would have raised shouts and would have collected people. But, there is nothing on record to show that the house of the accused is surrounded by other houses. The husband of the prosecutrix thereafter said that he went home and his wife narrated the incident. At about 1 to 1.30 p.m. they went to the house of Police Patil and informed the incident. Thereafter, the husband of the prosecutrix went for arranging the money for going to Adawad Police Station. It is argued before this Court that there is delay in approaching the Police Patil. 9. However, P.W.4-Jahangirkha Mehboobkha Tadvi who was ( 7 ) then Police Patil has stated that the prosectrix and her husband had come at his house at about 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and informed the incident and expressed desire to go the Adawad. Thereafter, at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. the prosecutrix and her husband came to the house of P.W.4- Jahangirkha in an auto-rickshaw and P.W.4 accompanied them to the Police Station. It is argued before me that Police Patil has not stated in his statement that the prosecutrix and her husband came to his house at about 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. It may be noted that the reason for delay in going to Adawad is that the couple had no money for fare and only after they had received the amount from the master of husband of the prosecutrix, they again approached the Police Patil for going to Adawad. Ordinarily, a woman would not stake her honour for falsely involving someone. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that there was any enmity between the couple and the accused. Merely because there was some quarrel amongst son of the accused and the prosecutrix is no reason for involving the accused falsely. 10. In this case P.W.8-Dr. Birasdar is examined on oath at Exh.34. He was working as the Medical Officer at Primary ( 8 ) Health Centre, Adawad. He stated that on 15.08.2007, when he was in the hospital, the prosecutrix was referred to him and he examined the prosecutrix. He found that there was abrasion on left side of her waist. So far as other signs seen by him are concerned, they were normal for married woman. He proved medical certificate at Exh.35. He also examined the accused on 16.08.2007 and found multiple abrasions over throat. The learned A.P.P. argued that the accused was specifically asked about those abrasions in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but the accused did not give any explanation. So, both the prosecutrix and the accused had injuries. If we see Exh.35 – Medical Certificate, in column 31 it is mentioned that there was abrasion on side of breast. Age are not found. Chemical Analyzer’s certificates produced on record do not show any semen or blood of the accused on the clothe of the prosecutrix. There is also Medical Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Jalgaon. It shows that on the person of the prosecutrix on 16.08.2007, he could find abrasion on left arm and abrasion on back. 11. The learned advocate for the appellant cited several authorities. In the cases of Panchshil V/s. State of ( 9 ) Maharashtra and Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1871, Vimal Suresh Kamble V/s. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Anr, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 612 and Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo V/s. State of Orissa, 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2387, in view of the facts involved in those matters it was held that the evidence of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence. In each case, there were some suspicious circumstances about conduct of the prosecutrix and possilibity of consent could not be ruled out. I may refer to paras 16 & 17 of the case of Panchshil (Supra), paras 18, 19 and 21 of the case or Vimal (Supra) and paras 9,17 & 18 of the case of Sudhansu (Supra), which clearly indicate the various circumstances. In this case it is argued before this Court that the prosecutrix did say that when the accused caught her waist, she raised shouts, but, P.W.3-Sangita who claimed to have seen the accused being chased by the husband of the prosecutrix, did not say that she heard shouts, nor any other neighbour came on hearing shouts. I have already noted that so far as neighbourhood is concerned, it is not brought on record either in the cross- examination or in the evidence of any witness, what was the distance between neighbouring huts and the hut of the prosecutrix. So, unless record shows that there was any but ( 10 ) within call’s distance, it cannot be argued that since no one heard shouts of prosecutrix, she must be telling falsehood. 12. In the case of Suresh s/o. Govinda Nagdeve and Anr., V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 648, it is observed that in a rape case corroboration is necessary unless the evidence of prosecutrix is inspiring confidence and reliable for basing conviction. If there is any doubt about its reliability and trustworthiness, such evidence cannot be treated as a basis for conviction of the accused. 13. Another case cited on the same point is State of Maharashtra V/s. Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware and Anr., 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2767. In that case, it is observed that testimony of prosecutrix cannot be treated as gospel truth. Only if the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be wholesome, in that case alone evidence could be relied upon to base conviction. 14. In this case, it may be noted that the even if we consider probabilities, there is no reason to doubt evidence of the prosecutrix. It is suggested that merely because husband came, there was complaint. It may be noted that in ( 11 ) the case of Panchsil (Supra) or Vimal (Supra) or Sudhansu (Supra), there were distinct circumstances, which raised reasonable doubt to infer that those were cases of consent. It is argued that it is unnatural for the prosecutrix to raise shouts, when her husband was chasing the accused as deposed by P.W.3-Sangita. However, such shouts after the incident may be for help to catch the accused or may be expression of anguish due to dishonour. It is not brought on record what she was shouting. After going through the evidence of the prosecutrix, her husband, P.W.3-Sangita, Police Patil and medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no adequate reason to disbelieve the prosecution or to hold that it was a case of consent. No such defence is taken nor any circumstance favourable for holding theory of consent is brought on record. Therefore, the accused is not entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt. 15. Alternatively, it is argued that in case it is held that the offence is proved, the accused has been in jail from last nine months and the sentence already undergone may be considered as sufficient. I may refer to Section 376 of the ( 12 ) I.P.C. and its proviso. As per said proviso of Section 376 (1) of I.P.C., only for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, imprisonment for term less than seven years could be awarded. In this case, rape was committed on a married woman, while she was alone in the house, that too in the day light. The submission of the accused that he has three children and old parents was taken into consideration. The accused is of 28 years of age. There is no adequate and special reason. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. 17. Copy of this judgment be provided to the accused/appellant through jail authorities free of costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crap301.09