sat 1 cri.appln 571-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 571 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ....Appellant vs. Rangnath Vishnu Supugade ...Respondent Mr.J.P. Kharge for the Appellant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) :- 1 The State has filed this application for grant of leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 31st December, 2010 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, in Sessions Case No.44 of 2006. The respondent Rangnath Vishnu Supugade was prosecuted for the offences punishable u/ss. 452 of IPC and 376 of IPC. The victim of the offence is one Dhanashri who was about six years old at the time of incident. She was Daughter of Nita and Mangesh Pawar residing at Mulgaon, Taluka Patan. It is sat 2 cri.appln 571-2011 alleged that on the date of incident i.e. on 27th March, 2006, the respondent had committed trespass at the house of the complainant-Nita Mangesh Pawar and took away her daughter Dhanashri (victim) to his house and committed rape on her. The complainant came to know about the incident when Dhanashri returned home and narrated the incident to the complainant. 2 Matter was reported to police on 30th March, 2006. After registration of offence, the victim and accused both were sent for medical examination. During the course of medical examination of victim, the Medical Officer found that her hymen was absent. She took vaginal swab for analysis for being sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After examination of victim, the Medical Officer found it difficult to give her opinion whether forcible sexual intercourse was committed with the victim. However on the basis of oral testimony of the victim and the statements of sat 3 cri.appln 571-2011 witnesses, the respondent was chargesheeted. 3 Trial was held. Almost all important witnesses were examined. The learned trial court however disbelieved the evidence of witnesses particularly, in view of the opinion of the Medical Officer and absence of report of the vaginal swab. 4 It is seen from the record that the relations between the respondent and the family of the complainant were not good. The evidence was, therefore, critically examined by the learned trial court. The learned trial court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal. It appears from the evidence that the meetings were held in the village and therefore, there was delay in lodging the FIR. However, it appears that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. There is no witness who was present near the spot and who could see the victim at the house of the respondent sat 4 cri.appln 571-2011 or she coming out of the house of the respondent. 5 The evidence of other witnesses was disbelieved mainly because of evidence of the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer has stated clearly that there may be other reasons for rupture of hymen. The sexual intercourse could be one of them. The Medical Officer did not find any other injury on or near vagina or other part of body of the victim. It was, therefore, difficult for the Medical Officer to give opinion as to whether forcible sexual intercourse was committed on the victim. 6 Considering the age of the victim, had there been penetration even to a small extent, there would have been a severe injury to her vagina. At the same time, there would have been injuries on other parts of body also. The incident would not have been narrated by the victim as casually as she has narrated. In our opinion, considering the age of the sat 5 cri.appln 571-2011 victim, she would have started crying after the incident and she would not have returned home in normal condition. In addition to this, we may also mention that the learned Additional PP was unable to tell us as to the report of vaginal swab of the chemical analyser. It appears that the report was not placed before the trial court. 7 We do not think that the learned trial court has committed any error. The view expressed by the learned trial court is consistent with the evidence on record. We do not think that there could be any other possible view on the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant leave to file appeal against the said order. 8 The application, therefore, stands dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)