1 APPLN3885.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3885 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra : Applicant (Orig. Complainant) V/s. Ram @ Banti Adinath Jadhav : Respondent (Orig. Accused) .... Ms M.H.Mhate, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 02, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. 2. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 28.4.2010 passed by the 6th Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, whereby the respondent came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Addl. Public 2 APPLN3885.10 Prosecutor and perused the judgement. The trial Court, considering the evidence on record in paragraph 14 of the judgment, has observed thus:- “14. In the instant case, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) in her examination in chief has deposed that, on 14/09/09 at about 8.30 p.m. while she was coming back to her home after attending the tuition class, accused met her at Shivsens bridge, proposed her for taking tea, took her to Maitri park then to Kalamboli in a hutment area in a room of his friend and at about 1.45 a.m. forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. It is her further evidence that, at about 5.00 a.m. they went to Panvel railway station and from there by train they went to village Rajapur. The accused left her at Rajapur railway station and went back to Mumbai alone. Then, she called her uncle Jaywant Pawar (P.W.3) at Rajapur railway station by making phone who came and took her to his home at village Pangre-Baudh wadi. She told to her uncle that, she had come 3 APPLN3885.10 here as there was quarrel in between her and her mother. Then, her uncle informed to her father about her coming on next day her father came who brought her back to Mumbai and then she lodged complaint/FIR against the accused. Further, in her cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that, on 14/09/09 at noon time there was quarrel in between her and her mother and in the said quarrel her mother asked her to leave home. Due to that, she was mentally disturbed and therefore after coming back from tuition class, she called accused Ram by making phone call and told him that, we have to go to Rajapur and asked accused Ram to accompany her upto Rajapur and to reach her there. Accused let her at Rajapur railway station and came back to Mumbai. Apart, she has further stated that, her father pressurized her to take the name of accused Ram while lodging complaint and on next day also her father took her to Trombay police station and insisted her to lodge the complaint aagainst accused Ram. She has also 4 APPLN3885.10 stated that, her statements (Exh.13 and 14) were not recorded by the police as per her say and the same was recorded as per the say of her father and she was merely asked to sign on those documents. She has also stated that, before 09/02/10 she was pressurized by her parents to depose against accused and therefore she has deposed against accused Ram in examination in chief. It is also her evidence that, before the medical officer at the time of her medical examination, she had told that, she is loving accused Ram and there was no sexual intercourse in between them from 14th to 17th September, 2010 and on 14.09.09 accused Ram had reached her at Rajapur on her request and he had no intention to kidnap her or to commit sexual intercourse with her.” 4. In paragraph 19, the trial Court recorded the findings, based on the evidence which is discussed in paragraph 14 of the judgement, which read thus:- 5 APPLN3885.10 “19. Thus, considering the entire evidence brought on record and more particularly on the basis of the inconsistent, unreliable and doubtful testimony of the prosecutrix as well as the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witness Shashikant Pawar (PW-2), Jaywant Pawar (PW-3) and API Balasaheb Shirke (PW-4) and the investigating officer PI Shri Sunil Bhoite (PW-5) as pointed out by the learned defence counsel, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt against the accused u/s. 376 and 363 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. I fully agreed with the learned defence counsel that for want of cogent and reliable evidence, the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. As regards the rulings (cited supra) with due respect I hold that those are not at all helpful to the case of prosecution as their facts are entirely different from the facts of present case. Thus, accordingly I recorded my findings against point nos.1 and 2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order:- 6 APPLN3885.10 .............................................................................” 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been reflected in paragraph 14 of the judgment. 6. In the circumstances, the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, in our view, are just and proper and need no interference. Leave refused. Criminal Application is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)