Partly allowed

Vishwas @ Vishu Vijay Haldankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Sept 2009APEAL/611/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for rape, evidence including victim testimony and medical report supported the conviction. While upholding the conviction for rape and wrongful confinement, the High Court reduced the life sentence to ten years imprisonment, noting the appellant had already served that duration. The appellant was granted immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Life sentence reduced to ten years imprisonment; appellant directed to be released forthwith as he had already served beyond ten years; fine remitted.

Vishwas @ Vishu Vijay Haldankar Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

Ladda

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.611 OF 2003.

¶6

Vishwas @ Vishu Vijay Haldankar,
age 36 years,presently lodged
at Yerwada Central
Prison, Pune.
..Appellant/Orig.Accused.

¶7

vs.

¶8

The State of
Maharashtra ..Respondent.
(at the instance of Tardeo Police
Station, C.R.No.188/1998)

¶9

Mrs Smita Gaidhani, Advocate (appointed)

¶10

Dr F.R. Shaikh,A.P.P. for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: BILAL NAZKI,

¶12

 AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ

¶13

DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki,J)

¶15

1.The appellant-accused was tried for an
offence punishable under Sections 324, 506(II),
307, 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

¶16

¶17

in Sessions Case No.1094 of 1998 by the learned

¶18

Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay(the

¶19

Trial Court for short). The appellant has been

¶20

awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and

¶21

fine Rs.5,000/-under Section 376 of the IPC, and
one year of imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-

¶22

under Section 342 of the IPC. However, the

¶23

accused was acquitted for the offence punishable
under Sections 324, 506(II) and 307 of the I.P.C.

¶24

2.He was charged for the aforesaid offences

¶25

on the allegations that on 28th July, 1998 he

¶26

wrongfully confined Prachi P.W.6, a minor, his

¶27

cousin sister and also raped her. He pleaded not

¶28

guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution
examined seven witnesses and exhibited several
documents. The appellant-accused has been in

¶29

custody right from the beginning. He was not

¶30

bailed out during the trial. He is also in jail
after conviction.

¶31

3.We have heard the learned counsel

¶32

appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as

¶33

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused

¶34

¶35

the paper book in Sessions Case No.1094 of 1998.

¶36

4.The facts of the case are that the

¶37

alleged victim had lost her parents and she along
with her other sister and brother was living in
uncle�s house. The appellant-accused who is son
of the uncle of the victim, during one night
committed rape on the victim. The victim Prachi
P.W.6 has vividly stated in her statement as to
what happened. She stated that during the night

¶38

of the incident she was sleeping in a room on the

¶39

sofa and the mother of the accused-

¶40

appellant,Kunda P.W.4, was sleeping on the floor
of the house. The other inmates were not in the

¶41

house. They had gone to sleep somewhere. Whereas
her uncle who was employed somewhere had gone on

¶42

night duty. During the night of the incident, at
about 3:00 a.m., the accused entered the house.

¶43

He was drunk. P.W.4, his mother, got up. The

¶44

accused forced her to go out of the house. She

¶45

went out of the house due to his fear. Then

¶46

accused raped the victim P.W.6. Substantially,

¶47

this statement is corroborated by the mother of

¶48

¶49

the accused also who testified as P.W.4 that she

¶50

was sleeping with her niece when her son �

¶51

accused came back at home at 3.00 a.m. He forced

¶52

her to go out of house, bolted the door from

¶53

inside. When she entered back, after some time,

¶54

he opened the door, she saw Prachi P.W.6 was

¶55

weeping and in the morning she told her aunt that
she was raped. Dr Patil P.W.2 found hymen intact
but also found hymnal orifice admits tip of
little finger.

¶56

5.Therefore, we find that the Trial Court

¶57

was right in convicting the accused-appellant for

¶58

the offence under Section 376 of the IPC but on

¶59

the question of sentence we find that the Trial

¶60

Court has been harsh on the appellant by
sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The
appellant is in jail for the last 11 years and

¶61

therefore considering the facts of this case
while up-holding the conviction under Section 376
of the IPC and also under section 342 of the IPC,

¶62

we reduce the sentence to a sentence of ten years
instead of imprisonment for life. Hence, we pass

¶63

¶64

the following order:-

¶65

ORDER.

¶66

1.The conviction of the accused appellant
for the offence under Sections 376 and 342 of the

¶67

I.P.C.,is upheld, however, the sentence of
imprisonment for life is reduced to a sentence of
ten years. The fine amount with default
stipulation is maintained. The accused-appellant
has already served sentence beyond ten years,
therefore, fine amount shall not be recovered
from him and the period of sentence served beyond
ten years shall be taken as sentence in lieu of
fine.

¶68

2.Since the appellant has been in jail for

¶69

more than ten years, therefore, we direct that he
should be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case. The appeal is allowed to the

¶70

aforesaid extent. Appeal is disposed of
accordingly.Sd/-

¶71

accordingly.

¶72

(BILAL NAZKI,J)

¶73

Vishwas @ Vishu Vijay Haldankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas @ Vishu Vijay Haldankar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Ugamraj Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Sattar Abdul Aziz Khan Vs the State of Mah

Niranjan Vasantlal Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramasharay @ Kalya Kamlaprasad Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tulshiram Raghu Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Visesh Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra