/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.951 OF 2008 Pandit Ragho Shewale @ Pandit Chairman ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri M.B. Shirsat i/b. M.N.Sandhyanshiv Shri Rajesh More APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant is convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for 15 months. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the Applicant was working as a watchman in the field of one Lotan Bhika . The prosecutrix was sixteen years of age when the said incident had occurred. She had gone to the field in search of her donkeys. She made the search but they were not traced. When she was returning home, the Applicant chased her and attempted to commit rape by pinning her down after removing her clothes. Despite the pleadings made by her, he continued to attempt rape and sat on her waist. He kept her / 2 / leg on her waist and removed her knicker and also his pant when the prosecutrix took bite of his hand and escaped and ran away to her house. Her mother was standing near the house. She naratted the incident to her mother and 2/3 females from neighbourhood came there and then her mother narrated the incident to them. 3. The prosecution has examined the Doctor, who has stated in his deposition that he had found a scratch mark on left hand by nails and scratch mark over both lower limbs. He also examined the accused and found scratch mark over right iliac fossa and on left forearm by nails, bite marks by teeth on left forearm and scratch mark over left lower limb below knee by nails. The medical evidence, therefore, probabled the prosecution case. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that false allegations were levelled against the Applicant. Firstly, because the prosecutrix had faced financial loss since she was responsible for taking the donkeys to the field of Lotan Bhika on an earlier occasion. He secondly submitted that there were inherent contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix. He submitted that she had stated that the Applicant had attempted to commit rape in a sugar cane field. He submitted that in the spot panchnama, however, there is no reference of any sugarcane field. He also invited my attention to the contradictory statement of the prosecutrix's mother, / 3 / he also submitted that there are several contradiction in the FIR and the statement made by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief. He further submitted that an adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the prosecution since the evidence of other independent witnesses was not brought on record. 5. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the Applicant. The spot panchnama does disclose that there was tall grass at the site and the statement of the prosecutrix is also corroborated by the medical evidence. No case is, therefore, made out for grant of bail. The Applicant had attempted to commit the rape on the victim girl but did not succeed in the evil intention only because of the alertness shown by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix belongs to the backward community. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail. Application for bail is rejected. V.M. KANADE J.