1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Revision Application No. 210 of 2009 Kishor Rajaram Tayade, Aged 24 years, Occupation Labour, Resident of Sutgaon, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon Appellant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. P.S. Koshti, Adv. h/f Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 31st August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision is filed in August, 2009, challenging the concurrent finding that the applicant had committed offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident took place on 28th February, 2001, at about 10.30 in the morning in an agricultural field. The victim was aged 14 years. She was alone in the field when the applicant attacked her with an intention to rape her. It is alleged that he threatened her with a sickle in his hand and lifted her to take her to a field of banana where he raped her. It is alleged that due to forcible insertion, the victim suffered bleeding, and despite of this attack, she walked up to her house and disclosed the incident to her parents. Thereafter, immediately, the complaint was lodged and the victim was taken to the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer issued certificate certifying that the victim had suffered injuries on her vagina due to forcible penetration. On the other hand, the police started search of the applicant, who was a villager, known to the victim. She had named 2 him in the F.I.R. The applicant, it seems, could not be arrested till 26th May, 2004, when he was arrested at Mumbai. Thereafter, the sessions trial was conducted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. During the trial, the applicant raised two defences, first was of false implication and the other was of consensual intercourse. In order to substantiate the defence of consensual intercourse, he was under obligation to show that the victim was of more than 16 years old. But, the prosecution promptly brought on record the victim’s birth certificate showing her date of birth as ‘1st November, 1987’. There was one twist in the prosecution case that the name of the child that took birth on 1st November, 1987 had name ‘Hemlata’, whereas the victim’s name is ‘Lata’. The names of the parents of the child that was born on 1st November, 1987 are that of victim’s parents. The learned Judges of the lower Court rightly held that the birth certificate beyond doubt was of the victim and not of any other person. Thus, on the date of incident, the age of the victim was 14 years and 9 months. Assuming that the victim consented for the intercourse, the act of the accused would amount to an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In any case, even such defence was not accepted by the Courts below recording cogent reasons. The other defence of false implication is only a suggestion given by the applicant. The impugned Judgments and the findings recorded therein are not incorrect, no illegality is found in them. The revision should therefore fail. Revision stands dismissed. I am now told that the applicant has not surrendered after the appeal was dismissed and he is at large. In view of dismissal of the revision, issue arrest warrant against the applicant. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) srm/cra/210/09/31810 3