Shrawan S/O Atmaram Sisode vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

2. This case arises out of a criminal complaint filed-before the Magistrate First Class, Shindkheda who took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and thereafter committed the appellant to stand trial before the Court of Sessions. The complainant S (PW-2) is the wife of B (PW-3). They were residing at Nardana and the appellant was their immediate neighbour. The case of the prosecution is that on October 07, 1999 between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. when the complainant was alone in the house, since her husband and mother-in-law had gone to the fields, the appellant entered the house from the rear door and dragged the complainant to the room in front and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Soon thereafter, the mother of the appellant came to the complainant and begged her pardon for the misdeeds of her son. She requested her not to report the matter to anyone. In the evening when the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant came home, the complainant immediately reported the matter to them. The husband of the complainant, i.e. PW-3 was disturbed and offended and he immediately went to the house of the appellant to question him as to why he had committed such a heinous act. When he went to protest he was assaulted by the appellant and members of his family. He received several in injuries including a head injury. The complainant and her husband were immediately removed to Nardana Hospital where Dr. Nilesh Aaher (PW-1) attended to the injuries of the husband of the complainant. He was later removed to the hospital at Dhule.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that Dr. Aaher (PW-1) had informed the police about the arrival of PW-3 in the hospital with injuries and pursuant to the report received from the Medical Officer, a police constable was deputed to visit the hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that the husband of the complainant, i.e.PW-3 made a detailed report to the police constable both regarding assault on him and commission of rape on the complainant (PW-2). However, as it transpires, the report recorded by the police constable was only in relation to the offence of assault and there was no mention about the offence of rape committed by the appellant. The complainant and her husband were distressed on account of inaction of the police and therefore they reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Dhule on 11.10.1999. They made a written report to the Superintendent of Police wherein they mentioned the fact that the complainant had been raped by the appellant but the police was not taking appropriate action.

4. Despite the complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Dhule, no action was taken and this led the complainant to ultimately lodge a complaint before the concerned Magistrate on 15.11.1999. In the complaint made to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shindkheda the full facts were stated with regard to the earlier incident which took place in the afternoon and the later incident which took place after the husband of the complainant returned home from the fields and went to the house of the appellant to record his protest. The complaint also mentions that PW-3 was attended to by Dr. Aahre (PW-1) in the hospital who put stitches on his head injury. The complaint also mentions the fact that PW-1 had informed the police station, Nardana, and a constable had come to whom the entire incident had been narrated by PW-3 in the presence of Dr. Aahre (PW-1). However, the constable did not mention the episode relating to rape in the report recorded by him. Therefore, PW-3 lodged a report with the Superintendent of Police, Dhule on 11.10.1999. Even thereafter no action was taken by the police, and ultimately a complaint was filed before the Magistrate.

8. Having considered all aspects of the case and after having gone through the entire evidence on record, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one taken by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court concurrently finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.