State Of Maharashtra vs Panjab & Anr.

(Rohit W. Joshi, J.)

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

The appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra in order to challenge the judgment and order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Washim in Session Trial No.91 of 2011, whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Court has convicted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC and has sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and has acquitted the accused No.2 of the said offence. Since then, the accused No.1, Panjab More, has expired and vide order dated 18.07.2013, Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2013 is ordered to be abated against him.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.06.2011, at around 4:30 PM, accused No.1 committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The allegation of the prosecutrix is that whereas the accused No.1 committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, the accused No.2 aided the said offence by holding the hands of the prosecutrix and gagging her mouth by firmly putting his hand on her mouth. The prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that while offering resistance to the forcible sexual intercourse, she had bitten the hand of the accused No.2. The Sessions Court has found that the offence was proved against the accused No.1, however, finding that there was no evidence to connect the accused No.2 to the offence, the learned Sessions Court has passed an order of acquittal in favour of accused No.2.

The learned A.P.P. contends that the learned Sessions Court ought to have accepted the allegations against accused No.2 as well. He contends that it is a settled legal principle in relation to sexual offences that if the sole testimony of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, that by itself is sufficient to sustain a conviction against the perpetrators of the crime. He, therefore, contends that apart from accused No.1, accused No.2 should also have been convicted.

With the able assistance of the learned advocates, we have perused the record of the case and the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Court. Perusal of the evidence of prosecutrix will demonstrate that it is her specific case that she had bitten the palm of the accused No.2 while he tried to gag her mouth by pressing his hand. After the arrest of the accused persons, they were sent for medical examination. Injury report of accused No.2 (Exhibit 22) does not indicate any external injury. The appellant No.2 was examined by the doctor on the date of incident. Further, no evidence was found to infer that the palm of the accused No.2 was bitten by the prosecutrix. Apart from this, there is no other material to infer involvement of the accused No.2 in the offence. The presence of the accused No.2 at the crime scene is also doubtful.

Having regard to the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Court, as also to the evidence that is brought on record, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court granting acquittal to the accused No.2, particularly, having regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal arising out of an order of acquittal.

In the result, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is therefore dismissed.