1 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.12/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2009 Sukhshala w/o Sudam Bhosle ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri J.M. Murkute, Advocate for the petitioner Shri G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.A. Wakure, Advocate for respondent No.2 ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 11th November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner, who claims to be the victim of the alleged rape, assault and criminal intimidation, is challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.11.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gangakhed, District Parbhani, in Case S.T. No.14/2008, acquitting the respondent No. 2/ accused of the offence punishable under Sections 376, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. According to the petitioner, she and her relations Sagarbai and Vandana were in the field of one Rajabhau Dhondge, 2 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.12/2009 at village Awalgaon around 7.00 a.m. on 20.12.2007 for fetching grass for buffaloes, when the respondent No.2/ accused approached them, assaulted her and drove away Sagarbai and Vandana by administering threats and thereafter raped her at that spot. It is her case that she made her grievance known to the police around 1.40 p.m. on 20.12.2007 and thereafter a crime came to be registered against the respondent No.2/ accused at Sonpeth Police Station. In the course of the investigation that followed, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses, particularly two of her relations, who accompanied her, and seized pieces of bangles, blouse buttons, ear-ring from the place shown by the prosecutrix and got the prosecutrix medically examined. Forensic investigation revealed no semen either on the clothings of the prosecutrix or on her person. Three contusions, two of them on head and one on the back were noticed on the person of the prosecutrix. 3. The case was duly committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges under Sections 323, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were duly framed. The prosecutrix and Sagarbai were examined by the prosecution on the point of incident. Witnesses evincing the seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused as well as the investigation done at the spot were also examined. The prosecution examined Medical Officer to bring before the trial Court the physical condition of the prosecutrix and the accused. 3 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.12/2009 4. The record reveals that, P.W.1 Sagarbai turned hostile to the prosecution, leaving the prosecution with the lone testimony of prosecutrix on the point of incident. 5. Learned trial Court disbelieved the prosecutrix particularly for the reason that, none who allegedly accompanied her at the material time came forth in her support and there was no other evidence to corroborate her version of forcible sexual intercourse. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, the learned trial Court had completely ignored the medical evidence regarding the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix and as such, the findings of the trial Court are perverse. 7. It is true that there is medical evidence of contusions found on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination by P.W.4 Dr. Shaikh Anjuman Fatema, Medical Officer, Parbhani. She deposed that, she found three contusions - one on forehead, one on back and one on left side of head of the prosecutrix on 20.12.2007, but she was not in a position to give definite opinion as to the occurrence of sexual intercourse. Pertinently, she disclosed in her cross-examination that, in course of forcible sexual intercourse, there would be abrasion on the back 4 Cri.Revn.Appln.No.12/2009 invariably. However, she remained silent as to the probable cause of injuries – contusions vis-a-vis the alleged incident noticed on the person of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix also did not aver about the contusions she had sustained and had not explained as to how those contusions had occurred. 8. Para 12 of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial Court did deal with the contusions on head and scalp of the prosecutrix and observed that the contusions on the scalp and head would not have been caused unless caused by blow with hard object and there was no evidence to that effect. In absence of reference to the contusions in the testimony of the prosecutrix, nothing much can be said or commented upon regarding the occurrence of the contusions noticed on the body of the prosecutrix. 9. No perversity or error of law, therefore, can be perceived in the impugned judgment. Criminal Revision Application, therefore, stands dismissed. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/crra233.11