[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLN.NO.17 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Madhukar Manohar Prabhakar ..Respondent ... Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh advocate for applicant Mr. P.G.Bodale Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State and the learned advocate for the respondent-original accused no.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned VIth ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 497 of 2007, this application has been preferred by the State. The said case pertains to CR No. 403 of 2005 of Matunga Police Station, Mumbai. The said case is under Sections 363, 342, 323, 328, 307 r.w. 34 of IPC. The complainant is one Sana. [-2-] 3. The case of Sana is that she had a love affair with Hemant who is the son of the present applicant. Sana was asked to withdraw the said complaint. As she was not willing to do so she was kidnapped from Dadar Railway Station and taken away in a Car. She was kept confined in room and she was beaten up. Thereafter, she was set on fire. She sustained about 20% burn injuries. 4. As far as the rape is concerned, no role has been attributed to the respondent. But the specific contention of Sana is that Hemant had committed rape on her. As far as the incident of kidnapping is concerned, it has taken place on 13.7.2005, however, the FIR came to be lodged only on 2.10.2005. No plausible explanation has been given in respect of the delay in lodging FIR. It may be stated here that accused Hemant came to be tried and in the said case he came to be acquitted. Thereafter, the respondent preferred application for discharge which came to be allowed. 5. The material on record shows that even prior to the incident of rape as well as prior to the incident of kidnapping, prosecutrix Sana and Hemant [-3-] were residing together at Pune. No witness has stated that they had seen the present respondent in any of the premises where Sana and Hemant had resided. 6. As far as withdrawal of complaint by Sana and Sana being pressurised to withdraw her complaint, it may be stated here that the mother of the complainant Sana had moved the High Court for transfer of rape case from Pune Court to Court at Bandra. The reason for doing that which was averred by the mother of the prosecutrix was that the accused persons, used to threaten Sana for withdrawing the rape case and that there is danger to Sana and her mother while attending the Court at PUne relating to rape case. The High Court rejected that application on 29.9.2005. In the present case, the incident of taking away Sana from Dadar Railway Station has allegedly taken place on 13.7.2005. According to Sana, the incident of setting her on fire, took place on 16.8.2005. Thereafter, she was admitted in hospital. It is pertinent to note that in the proceedings of transfer before the High Court, nothing has been averred by the mother of prosecutrix about the [-4-] alleged incident dated 13.7.2005 or 16.8.2005. In fact, if these incidents have been averred by the mother of prosecutrix in transfer petition filed in the High Court, then that rape case from Pune Court would have been transferred to Mumbai on the ground of safety. But not uttering anything in that Transfer Application about the alleged incident on 13.7.2005 totally falsifies the prosecution case and certainly falsifies the present case against the present accused who has nothing to do with the affair between his son Hemant and Sana. While rejecting the application for transfer, this Court has specifically observed that the present accused i.e. father of Hemant was nothing to do with the affair between Sana and Hemant. 6. As stated earlier, after the entire evidence has been led, the learned Sessions Judge has found no material against the main accused Hemant who is son of the present respondent and hence, Hemant came to be acquitted in the said case. On perusal of the evidence, no material has been disclosed against the present respondent. The learned Sessions Judge after considering all the facts, discharged the respondent. Looking to the entire material on record, no case is made out for [-5-] interference with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, hence, application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]