Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2010

9th July, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. R. K. JADHAVAR,Shri. M. A. TANDALE
Respondent Counsel: Shri. S. D. KALDATE

Cases Cited:
State of Maharashtra Vs. Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2767=2008 Cri.L.J. 675 [Para 21]
Abbas Ahmad Chouhdary Vs. State of Assam, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1625 (S.C.)=2010 Cri.L.J. 2060 (S.C.) [Para 22]
Sunil Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 Cri.L.J. 839 (S.C.) [Para 23]
Bibhishan Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 517 (S.C.)=2008 Cri.L.J. 721 (S.C.) [Para 24]
Masmul Chaudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 148 (Jhar.) [Para 25]
Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3526 (S.C.)=AIR 2007 SC 155 [Para 26]
Visveswaran Vs. State Rep. By S.D.M., 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1401 (S.C.)=2003 Cri.L.J. 2548 (S.C.) [Para 29]
State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 [Para 30]
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mange Ram, 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1696 (S.C.)=AIR 2000 SC 2798 [Para 31]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant/original accused no.1 by way of judgment and order dated 21.1.2010, rendered by learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, in Special Case No.2 of 2007, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months and also convicting him under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, and also convicting him under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and directing him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, and all the aforesaid substantive sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case can be summarised as under :

It is the case of prosecution that PW-1 victim, who is the prosecutrix, minor at the relevant time i.e. in June, 2006, was residing at Kordewadi, Taluka Kaij along with her family members, and on 10.6.2006, her parents as well as her brother and his wife had gone to village Vida for weekly bazar and PW-1 victim and her younger sister Anita were at home. They had gone to the well of Sheshrao Patil for washing the clothes and returned back to home at about 2.30 p.m. and sister Anita went out of the house to dry the clothes; whereas victim was watching T.V. in the house. It is alleged that at this juncture the appellant/original accused Ganesh Korde entered into her house and started pressing her neck and also threatened her as well as he removed his clothes i.e. pant and nicker and removed victim's nicker and accused Ganesh inserted his penis into victim's vagina, and accordingly committed rape upon her, resulting into bleeding from her private part and blood stains fell on her knicker. Thereafter accused Ganesh went away.

3. It is also the case of prosecution that victim's parents, brother and sister-in-law returned back to home in the evening on 10.6.2006 and thereupon she informed them about the occurrence of the aforesaid incident of committal of rape upon her by accused. Hence, all of them, along with PW-3 Ashok Bansi Yadav proceeded to the police station, Kaij to lodge the complaint, but on the way near bridge, accused Ganesh, Anil Korde and other five persons stopped them and threatened them and assaulted them and accordingly obstructed them from proceeding to police station, Kaij to lodge the complaint, and therefore, they returned back. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that after lapse of about two days i.e. on 13.6.2006, PW-1 victim i.e. prosecutrix went to police station, Kaij and lodged the complaint against the accused and same was registered under C.R. No.134 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 341, 143, 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. It is further the case of prosecution that PW-4 Additional S.P. - Pralhad Balaji Sonwane was working as Dy. S.P. at Kaij in June, 2006 and in the night of 13.6.2006 C.R. No.134 of 2006 came to be registered by the complainant victim in respect of rape and rioting and accused were Savarna; whereas complainant was of Mahar caste. Hence, PW-4 Pralhad went to Kordewadi along with staff and searched for the accused, but could not trace them out. He drew the panchanama Exh.30. Moreover, he also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix under panchanama Exh.29 on 13.6.2006, as well as he drew panchanama of scene of offence Exh.28. During the course of investigation, PW-4 Pralhad also recorded the statements of witnesses, as well as recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix on 14.6.2006. He also arrested, three accused persons on 14.6.2006, the accused/appellant herein on 17.6.2006 and remaining two accused persons on 20.6.2006. On the same day clothes of appellant herein i.e. Ganesh and accused no.2 Anil were seized under seizure panchanamas Exhs.30 and 31 respectively. On 14.6.2006, statements of PW-2 Sushilabai Waghmare i.e. mother of victim and others were recorded. The caste certificate of the complainant was obtained, which is produced at Exh.37, as well as caste certificates of the accused persons were obtained by the investigating officer on 3.11.2006 and same are produced at Exhs.39 to 44 respectively.

5. The prosecution case also recites that the victim was sent for medical examination and her medical certificate was received on 26.6.2006 and PW-4 Pralhad made inquiry with the Medical Officer and answers given by said Medical Officer are produced at Exh.38. On 14.12.2006 PW-4 Dy. S.P. Pralhad sent the seized articles to the Chemical Analyser's office for examination purpose along with forwarding letter Exh.45. Accordingly, Chemical Analyser's reports thereof were received from the office of the Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad, which are produced at Exhs.46 to 48 respectively. Thus, after completion of investigation, PW-4 Pralhad filed the charge sheet against the accused persons in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Beed on 22.5.2007 for trial. Accordingly, charge came to be framed against the accused persons at Exh.6 on 15.10.2007 and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined in as much as four witnesses, as mentioned below.

PW-1 Prosecutrix-victim.

PW-2 Sushilabai Bajrang Waghmare, mother of the victim.

PW-3 Ashok Bansi Yadav, turned hostile.

PW-4 Pralhad Balaji Sonwane, Dy. S.P. i.e. investigating officer.

7. The defence of the accused was of total denial and it was suggested during the cross-examination conducted by accused that PW-3 Ashok Bansi Yadav had illicit relations with the victim, and therefore, the accused has been implicated in this case falsely, with the aid and assistance of PW-3 Ashok Yadav, and accordingly, the accused claimed to be innocent.

8. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused no.1 herein as aforestated; whereas learned Trial Judge acquitted accused nos.2 to 6 from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order inflicting conviction and sentence upon the appellant, the appellant has preferred the present appeal praying for quashment thereof.

9. In order to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, it is necessary to advert to the evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, to bring home the guilt against the accused. In the said context, coming to the testimony of PW-1 victim i.e. prosecutrix, she has stated that she was residing along with her parents, brother and his wife and sister together at Yeota, Taluka Kaij, District Beed and she belongs to Mahar caste. She also stated that on 10.6.2006 her parents and her brother and his wife had gone to weekly bazar and her younger sister Anita was at home. Hence, she and Anita had gone to the well of Sheshrao Patil for washing clothes and returned back at about 2.30 p.m. on the same day. Thereafter Anita went out of the house to dry the said clothes; whereas victim was alone in the house, who was watching Television.

10. At this juncture, accused Ganesh Korde entered into her house and tried to force her and he started pressing her neck and also threatened her, as well as removed his clothes including pant and knicker and removed the knicker of victim and accused Ganesh inserted his penis into her Vagina causing bleeding from her Vagina and thereby blood stains fell on her knicker. Thereafter accused Ganesh went away. She also stated that caste of Ganesh is Dhangar. According to PW-1 victim, her parents returned back to home and she narrated the afore said occurrence of incident to them. Hence, they proceeded to police station to file the complaint along with PW-3 Ashok Yadav. However, when they reached near bridge of the village, accused Ganesh Korde and Anil Korde and other six persons threatened them and asked them not to proceed to police station. Hence, they returned back. She further stated that after lapse of about two days, they went to police station and lodged the complaint (Exh.26). She further stated that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years and she was sent for medical examination, as well as her clothes were seized by the police personnel.

11. During cross-examination, she stated that she was not knowing the accused Ganesh Korde prior to the occurrence of the incident and he never came to their house and she saw the accused when he was entering into their house through door. She stated that she did not ask the accused why he had come. She further stated that when accused Ganesh came near to her, she asked him why he had come and he started to catch her and thereafter she tried to run away. She further stated that accused caught her and fell on the ground, but no scuffle took place between them. She also stated that after falling her on the ground, the accused Ganesh started removing her clothes, but at that time her both hands and both legs were free. In the said context, she stated that when accused was removing her clothes, she was lying closing her eyes. Hence, suggestion was given that she did not oppose the accused to remove her clothes, but same was denied by her. She also admitted that after going aside the accused Ganesh removed his pant and shirt. She also volunteered that she opposed the accused Ganesh. However, she admitted that two hours time was lapsed from entering into her house and leaving her house. Suggestion was given in the cross-examination that PW-3 Ashok Yadav used to visit their house frequently, but same was denied by her. She also stated that Ashok Yadav had no acquaintance with her brother. It was also suggested to her that said Ashok Yadav had illicit relations with her, but same was denied by her. Suggestion was also given to her that present false complaint has been filed against the accused at the instance of said Ashok Yadav, but same was denied by her. She also denied that she deposed falsely that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years.

12. Having the comprehensive view of the testimony of PW-1 victim, although PW-1 victim stated in her deposition that the accused Ganesh inserted his penis into her Vagina after removing clothes of both of them, there was bleeding from her vagina and blood stains fell on her knicker, but pertinently the said proposition has not been corroborated by the Chemical Analyser's report and the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.45/C reflects that no blood was detected on knicker i.e. Exh.7, as well as no semen was detected thereon. It is also significant to note that PW-1 victim stated in her cross-examination that she was not knowing Ganesh Korde prior to the occurrence of the incident, then the question arises how name of the appellant/accused has been reflected in the complaint lodged by PW-1 victim. Pertinently, thereafter she stated that she saw the accused Ganesh entering into her house, apparently a stranger, since PW-1 victim stated that she was not knowing him, and therefore, in the natural course of events, she would have asked him why he had come, but PW-1 victim stated that she did not ask accused Ganesh why he had come. Thereafter she stated in the cross-examination that when accused Ganesh came near to her, then she asked why he came and she tried to run away, but stated that no scuffle took place between them. She further stated that after falling her on the ground, accused Ganesh started removing his clothes and although her hands and legs were free, she simply was lying closing her eyes. Hence, in the natural course of events, victim could have resisted and a scuffle would have taken place between her and accused, as well as when accused was removing her clothes, although her hands and legs were free, she simply lied down closing her eyes, which appears to be unnatural conduct. Besides that, it is also material to note that she stated that accused was in her house for the period of two hours and she has nowhere given explanation about the presence of the accused for such substantial period of two hours. In view of the afore said infirmities, the testimony of PW-1 victim i.e. the prosecutrix comes under the cloud of suspicion.

13. That takes me to the testimony of PW-2 Sushilabai i.e. the mother of victim, who stated that she has got two daughters, namely victim and Anita, and on the day of incident, she had gone to weekly bazar at Village Vida along with her children and her husband had gone for grazing she-goats; whereas Anita and victim were present in the house. They had gone for washing clothes. She also stated that they returned back (from bazar) in the evening. She also stated that victim told her that incident took place at about 2.00 p.m. when they returned after washing the clothes and when Anita was out side the house for drying the clothes and when victim alone was present in the house. She further stated that victim told her that accused Ganesh came there and thereafter victim started crying, but Ganesh committed rape upon her. She further stated that thereafter they proceeded by jeep to police station, but when they reached near the river, accused Ganesh and his friends pelted stones on jeep, and accordingly, accused Ganesh obstructed them from going to the police station and threatened them, and hence, they returned back. She further stated that thereafter they went to the police station and lodged the complaint. During cross-examination, she stated that age difference between victim and Anita was of two years. Suggestion was given to her that she deposed falsely that victim told her that accused Ganesh came and committed rape upon her, but same was denied by her. It was also suggested to her that they filed false complaint against the accused at the instance of PW-3 Ashok Yadav, but same was also denied by her.

14. Considering the testimony of PW-2 Sushilabai, it is apparent that her version is dependent upon the incident narrated to her by victim. Moreover, no specific date and time of alleged committal of rape on her by accused Ganesh has been mentioned therein, and therefore, it is not clear whether victim narrated the incident to PW-2 Sushilabai immediately after occurrence thereof. Further she stated that age difference between victim and Anita was of two years. Accordingly, the testimony of PW-2 Sushilabai cannot be of any much aid and assistance to the case of prosecution.

15. That takes me to the testimony of PW-4 Dy.S.P. Pralhad Sonawane, who has investigated present C.R. No.134 of 2006 and during investigation he visited Kordewadi along with staff and searched for the accused, as well as drew panchanama Exh.30 and seized the clothes of the prosecutrix under panchanama Exh.29, and also drew the panchanama of the scene of offence Exh.28 on 13.6.2006. Thereafter on 14.6.2006 he recorded statements of eight witnesses and also recorded supplementary statement of prosecutrix and arrested three accused on 15.6.2006 and arrested appellant herein on 17.6.2006 and seized his clothes. Further on 20.6.2006 he arrested remaining two accused. He produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh.37. He also stated that he received the medical examination certificate of victim on 26.6.2006, and therefor he made some query with the Medical Officer and answer given by the said Medical Officer is produced at Exh.38, as well as caste certificates of the accused persons are produced at Exhs.39 to 44 respectively. He further sent the seized articles to the office of Chemical Analyser on 14.12.2006 along with forwarding letter Exh.45, and the Chemical Analyser's reports thereof are produced at Exhs.46 to 48 respectively. Moreover, he also sent blood sample of the accused/appellant for examination purpose on 2.8.2006 and after completion of investigation filed the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he stated that blood sample of the accused was taken in the hospital at Kaij and same was sent to the office of Chemical Analyser for examination purpose. He also stated that he did the age determination test of the prosecutrix, but does not remember the name of the hospital where it was done. Suggestion was given to him that at the time of incident age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years, but same was denied by him.

16. Accordingly, considering the testimony of PW-4 Dy. S.P. Pralhad Sonawane, he carried out the investigation under C.R. No.134 of 2006, including recording of the statements of witnesses and drew panchanamas as afore said and arrested the accused persons and sent the seized articles to the office of the Chemical Analyser for examination purpose. Moreover, he also sent the victim for medical examination purpose and made inquiry with the Medical Officer and answer given by the Medical Officer is produced at Exh.38. In that context, he stated in the cross-examination that he did the age determination test of the prosecutrix, but does not remember the name of the hospital thereof, and therefore, suggestion was given to him that prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age at the time of occurrence of the incident, but same was denied by him, and it is the endeavour of the appellant to establish that the prosecutrix was more than 18 years old at the time of occurrence of the incident.

17. On the afore said background, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that burden lies upon the prosecution to prove that complainant is a minor girl, but the prosecution failed to produce on record any record of her age and school leaving certificate, and accordingly, there is no positive proof of the age of the prosecutrix. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that contents of the medical certificate produced at Exh.38 have not been proved and the age mentioned therein is without conducting ossification test upon the victim. In the said context, the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that PW-2 Sushilabai has stated in her cross-examination that there was two years difference in the ages of prosecutrix i.e. victim and Anita and school leaving certificate of Anita is produced on record along with Exh.54, which discloses her date of birth as 20.7.1989, and since PW-2 Sushilabai stated in her deposition that there was difference of two years between the ages of prosecutrix i.e. victim and Anita, the birth of victim must have taken place in the year 1987 i.e. two years prior to the date of birth of Anita and since the date of incident is 10.6.2006, the age of prosecutrix i.e. victim on the date of incident must be of about 19 years i.e. above 18 years, and accordingly, prosecutrix was not minor on the date of incident, as canvassed by the prosecution.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that the victim never stated in her deposition that the accused closed the door after entering into her house and in the natural course of events, had the accused entered into the house of prosecutrix, he would have certainly closed the door from inside before committing the act of rape upon the victim. It is also submitted that the alleged incident occurred in the broad day light i.e. at 2.30 p.m. on 10.6.2006, but it is curious to note that nobody from the nearby vicinity has been examined by the prosecution as independent witness for corroboration and the said inaction on the part of the prosecutrix diminishes the credibility of the prosecution case.

19. It is further canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the incident occurred on 10.6.2006, the first information report came to be lodged after three days of the incident i.e. on 13.6.2006 and the said three days delay in lodging the first information report has not been explained by the prosecution satisfactorily, and even assuming for the sake of assumption without admission that the accused obstructed the complainant and her parents from lodging the first information report on 10.6.2006, nothing prevented the complainant to lodge the complaint on the next day i.e. on 11.6.2006, but so did not happen and the complaint came to be lodged on 13.6.2006 and no plausible explanation therefor has been given by the prosecution in that respect.

20. Besides that, the learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the prosecution has failed to produce any medical evidence on record, including the medical examination certificate of the victim, although the victim was medically examined, to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is nothing on record to prove and establish that the appellant committed any offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

21. To substantiate the contentions of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the observations made in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Rameshwar Shridhar Jaware and Anr., reported at 2008 Cri.L.J. 675 : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2767], as under :

"23. The circumstances prevailing in the said village clearly makes out a case that in the cases of that village on allegations of rape, the evidence of prosecutrix cannot be treated as gospel truth. IN the present case, as rightly pointed out by the learned appellate Judge, evidence of prosecutrix requires corroboration. Her uncorroborated testimony cannot be relied upon for basing the conviction. The cases cited by the learned A.P.P. are distinguishable on facts. It is true that the evidence of prosecutrix can be relied upon in the sex offences even if it is uncorroborated, but provided it is found wholesome trustworthy. Here is the case where material evidence i.e. medical evidence and CAs. report tend to shed doubts on the prosecution case. The possibility of false accusation cannot be ruled out. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is riddled with contradictions and omissions and top of all, she though claimed that she has resisted the forcible rape by the respondents, no remarkable injuries were found on her person. All this makes us to hold that the view taken by the learned appellate Judge cannot be said to be perverse."

22. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abbas Ahmad Chouhdary Vs. State of Assam, reported at 2010 Cri.L.J. 2060 (SC) (Gauhati) : [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1625 (S.C.)] :

"5. ........... ...................

We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of the prosecutrix must be given primary consideration, but, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully."

23. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana, reported at 2010 Cri.L.J. 839 (S.C.), which are as follows :

"29. The short question in the facts and circumstances of this case remains to be determined is whether the prosecutrix was a minor ? Dr. Sadhana Verma, PW-1 who examined the prosecutrix referred her for verification to the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist. The failure of getting the prosecutrix examined from the Dental Surgeon or the Radiologist despite the fact that she was referred to them by Dr. Sadhana Verma, PW-1 is a serious flaw in the prosecution version. We are not laying down as a rule that all these tests must be performed in all cases, but in the instant case, in absence of primary evidence, reports of the Dental Surgeon and the Radiologist would have helped us in arriving at the conclusion regarding the age of the prosecutrix."

24. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bibhishan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2008 Cri.L.J. 721 (S.C.) (Bombay) : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 517 (S.C.)], which are as follows :-

"6. We have gone through the judgment of both the Courts below and also perused the necessary record. As per the evidence of the doctor, there was no injury on the body of the prosecutrix. There was no sign of semen on the private part of the body. Neither her clothes were torn nor there was any presence of hair of the accused on the private part of the prosecutrix. The doctor after examining the prosecutrix, deposed that the girl was habituated to sexual intercourse. In view of this evidence, we are of the opinion that the High Court as well as trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant. The accused who has been charged under Section 376 read with Section 511, IPC is entitled to benefit of doubt.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we give the benefit of doubt to the appellant-accused as the charges framed against him are not proved beyond reasonable doubt."

25. The learned counsel for the appellant also further relied upon the observations made in the case of Masmul Chaudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported at 2010 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 148 (Jhar.), wherein it is observed :

"Appellant allegedly committed rape on complainant when she was alone in the house, but the testimony of prosecutrix was, however, not reliable, since nobody saw appellant entering into the house. Moreover, all the prosecution witnesses were hear say witnesses, who came to know about occurrence of the incident from the father of victim girl. Besides, complainant is related to appellant as his cousin sister. From the evidence of prosecutrix and that of father showed that they wanted marriage of complainant to be performed with accused. Besides, first information report was lodged after 6-7 days. Moreover, it is also held that prosecution has failed to bring anything on record with regard to the medical examination by doctor. Hence appellant is entitled to be acquitted."

26. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at AIR 2007 SC 155 (Bombay) : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3526 (S.C.) : 2007 ALL SCR 248] :

"In the instant case rape was committed on a girl belonging to Scheduled Caste. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a scheduled caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to the Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that the prosecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste community. The conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside."

27. Shri. S. D. Kaldate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the evidence of prosecutrix PW-1 victim is reliable and trustworthy and there are no omissions/contradictions brought on record in her testimony, and hence, her deposition is truthful, and therefore, it does not require any corroboration and same needs to be believed.

28. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also canvassed that the Chemical Analyser's report dated 15.6.2007 Exh.46 discloses that Exh.3 therein i.e. Jangya of the victim bore blood stains of 'O' group, as well as Exh.6 therein i.e. full Manila discloses two blood stains and the said report discloses that Exh.6 bore blood stains of blood group 'O' and the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.47 discloses that the blood group of victim is 'O', and therefore, it is clear that the jangya and full Manila bore the blood stains of blood group of victim, which, consequently, connects appellant with the alleged crime. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also canvassed that the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order is based upon sound footing and same cannot be faulted with. Accordingly, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction and urged that present appeal be dismissed.

29. To substantiate the said contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaran Vs. State Rep. By S.D.M., reported at 2003 Cri.L.J. 2548 (S.C.) (Madras) : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1401 (S.C.)], which are as follows :

"The approach required to be adopted by Courts in rape cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity. Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the Courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by Courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved."

30. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent also relied upon the following observations made in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and others, reported at AIR 1996 SC 1393 :

"In sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Even if there is some delay in lodging FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter."

31. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent further relied upon the observations made in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mange Ram, reported at AIR 2000 SC 2798 (Himachal Pradesh) : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1696 (S.C.)], which are as follows :

"Submission of the body under the fear of terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the purpose of S.375 required voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between the resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances."

32. I have perused the impugned judgment and also perused the record and proceedings comprising of oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced on record by the prosecution, as well as considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and also gave thoughtful consideration to the observations made in the above referred Rulings cited by both the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, since, as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the age of the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence of incident was below 18 years. In the said context, it is to be noted that the certificate, produced by the prosecution at Exh.38 discloses that the Rural Hospital, Kaij has stated therein that the age of victim is in between 15 to 16 years and she was capable of doing intercourse, as well as there were no injuries on her private part, but the opinion regarding forcible rape upon her could be given after receipt of the Chemical Analyser's report only. However, the said certificate does not disclose that any ossification test of the victim girl was done before certifying her age in between 15 to 16 years, and in the absence of such ossification test of the victim girl, the opinion given by the Medical Officer in respect of age of victim girl in between 15 to 16 years on the date of occurrence of the incident cannot be accepted as gospel truth.

33. Keeping in mind the said aspect and coming to the testimony of PW-1 victim, she has stated that at the time of incident, her age was 15 years and also stated in the cross-examination that difference between her age and age of her sister Anita is of one year; whereas PW-2 Sushilabai, mother of victim stated in her deposition that the age difference between victim and Anita is of two years. Admittedly, as mentioned herein above, the school leaving certificate of Anita is produced along with list Exh.54, which discloses date of birth of Anita as 20.7.1989, and therefore, since PW-2 Sushilabai mother of victim stated that there is difference of two years between the ages of victim and Anita, it can be very well construed that victim must have been born in the year 1987 and since admittedly the date of occurrence of incident is 10.6.2006, it is amply clear that the age of victim on the date of incident must be above 18 years, after computation of her age from 1987 upto 10.6.2006, and hence, there is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant.

34. Apart from that, PW-1 victim stated in her testimony that she was not knowing the accused Ganesh prior to the incident and she had not seen him prior to the date of incident and he never came to her house, then the question arises how the name of the accused reflected in the complaint. Moreover, she stated in the cross-examination that the distance between door of her house and the place where she was sitting was about 20 feet and she saw accused Ganesh when he entered into the house through door, but she did not ask the accused Ganesh why he had come, and subsequently, when accused Ganesh came near to her, she asked him why he has come. In the natural course of events, when a unknown person i.e. accused no.1 Ganesh came into the house of victim and when the distance between the door and the place where the victim was sitting was 20 feet, she would have immediately asked the accused about his identity and the purpose of his arrival in her house and would not have waited till he comes near her. The said inaction on the part of victim speaks volumes for itself.

35. Moreover, it is curious and surprising to note that no scuffle took place between the accused Ganesh and the victim when her hands and both the legs were free as stated by PW-1 victim. It is also significant to note the version of PW-1 victim that when accused was removing her clothes, she was simply lying closing her eyes. Pertinently, she further stated that the accused was in her house for about two hours. In the natural course of events, the victim would have shouted and obstructed the accused and scuffle would have taken place between them, but so did not happen, although her hands and legs were free, hence, when accused was removing her clothes, she would have resisted fiercely, but she was simply lying closing her eyes, and further the presence of accused in her house was for about two hours, and hence, inaction on the part of the victim as well as presence of the accused in her house for two hours speaks volumes for themselves.

36. Besides that, it has nowhere come in the testimony of PW-1 victim that accused closed the door after entering into the house, and in the natural course of events, accused would have closed the doors of her house from inside, if he wanted to commit rape upon the victim, but so did not happen. Moreover, the incident took place at 2.30 p.m. in broad day light and it is curious to note that the victim did not shout or call for assistance of her sister, since PW-1 victim stated that Anita had gone for drying the clothes outside house and Anita did not go to the house of others, which means Anita was just outside the house, and therefore, victim could have called her for help, but so did not happen, and all the said inactions on the part of victim raise finger against her and give rise to the possibility of consensual intercourse between victim and accused, and tried to implicate the accused subsequently in the crime of rape with ulterior motive.

37. Moreover, the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.46 discloses that no blood was detected on Exhs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 i.e. kurta, salwar, chaddi, full manila and nicker, as well as the said Chemical Analyser's report discloses that no semen was detected on Exhs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 i.e. kurta, salwar, jangya, chaddi, full pant, full Manila and knicker, as well as said Chemical Analyser's report discloses that Exh.3 i.e. Jangya detected human blood, but the said Chemical Analyser's report does not reflect blood group thereof. Moreover, the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.47 discloses that no semen was detected on Exhs.1 and 2 i.e. pubic hair of victim and vaginal swab of victim respectively. So also the Chemical Analyser's report Exh.48 discloses that no semen was detected on Exh.1 i.e. pubic hair of accused Ganesh, and blood group of Exhs.2 and 3 i.e. blood sample of accused Ganesh and semen of accused Ganesh could not be determined. Hence, it is amply clear that the said Chemical Analyser's reports Exhs.46 to 48 cannot be of any aid and assistance to the prosecution and do not connect the appellant with the alleged crime.

38. Apart from that, prosecution has failed to adduce and produce on record medical evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW-1 victim, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said evidence has not been brought on record, which also hampers the case of prosecution. Moreover, mere production of caste certificate of victim and accused will not bring the case of the prosecution under the purview of Section 3(2)(v) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and prosecution has failed to establish how and why the present case is covered by the said very provision.

39. In the circumstances, considering the ocular and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record, as well as the evidence of Chemical Analyser's reports produced by prosecution on record, it is amply clear that the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt at home against the accused and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt, and hence, the conviction and the sentence inflicted upon the appellant by the learned Trial Judge by way of judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 shall not sustain and same deserves to be quashed and aside and appellant herein needs to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

40. In the result, present Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2010 is allowed and conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by judgment and order dated 21.1.2010 in Special Case No.2 of 2007 by learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands quashed and set aside, and the appellant stands acquitted from the offences with which he was charged and convicted. The appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be refunded to him.

Appeal allowed.