1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.345 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2010 Prasad Anant Ghavali .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent Ms. Anjali Patil for the applicant. Mrs. M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 19th April, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has been convicted under section 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three years. 3. Prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was taken by one Pradeep to the house of Abhishek and there the accused had sexual intercourse with her one after the 2 another at different point of time. 4. On the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix and the other evidence which is brought on record, the Trial Court was pleased to convict the accused. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the prosecutrix in her entire statement has nowhere stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her. She submitted that medical evidence also does not support the case of rape by the accused. She further submitted that in cross-examination the prosecutrix has admitted that when the police met her at at Worli Sea- face late in night and inquired with her, she was frightened and angry with Pradeep for leaving her alone there where the police came and, therefore, she decided to teach Pradeep and his friends a lesson and, therefore, lodged complaint against them. 6. I have perused the statement of prosecutrix. There is much substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Nowhere in the entire statement the prosecutrix has stated that the accused had forcible intercourse with her. She has merely stated that the accused had sexually assaulted her. When a question was asked to her as to what she meant by sexual assault, she was unable to answer that question. In para 17 of her cross-examination she has stated as under:- 3 “17. I do not know exactly what is meant by sexual assault.” Further, in para 20 of her cross-examination, prosecutrix has also admitted that out of vengeance, she has filed a case against Pradeep and his friends. It would be relevant to reproduce what she has stated in para 20 of her cross- examination:- “20. It is true that when police met to me at Worli Sea-face and made an inquiry with me I was frightened. It is true that I was angry with Pradeep as he leave me alone there, where the police came. As I was frightened and when I was with police, I took decision to teach lesson to Pradeep. It is true that with view to teach lesson to Pradeep, I lodged report against Pradeep and his friends.” The Prosecutrix was not re-examined by the prosecution for the purpose of seeking any explanation from her in respect of what she has stated in para 20. Thus, the admission given by her in para 20 has gone unchallenged. Applicant, therefore, in my view, is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Applicant be released on bail in C.R. No.259 of 2008 registered at Dadar Police Station on execution of P.R. Bond 4 of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. He shall report to the concerned Police Station once in a month. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)