Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Shashikant Maruti Barde

Bombay HC17 Nov 2009APPLN/1265/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC against the acquittal of the respondent in a rape case, the High Court of Bombay reviewed the trial court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor and that there was no cogent evidence of a forcible relationship. The Court found no error in the trial court's reasoning and refused leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is refused and the criminal application is rejected.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shashikant Maruti Barde — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

srk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Application No.1265 of 2009

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shashikant Maruti Barde Respondent

¶8

Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ.

¶10

November 17, 2009.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard Smt.Bhosale, the learned APP. The State of Maharashtra has filed this application for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.191 of 2005. The present respondent was tried in the said case for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

¶13

The prosecutrix – Geeta was the daughter of Shri

¶14

¶15

Mahipati Sable and was staying in front of the house of the respondent – accused. As per her she used to visit the house of the accused for work and in the absence of his parents, the respondent expressed his love towards her and promised to marry her. She further claimed that he continued to have sexual relations with her and she conceived. It appears when her pregnancy was noticed by her mother the family approached the father of the accused for performing their marriage and this was flatly refused which resulted into filing a complaint with the nearest police station. She delivered a baby boy which did not survive for long.

¶16

The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses including PW 7 – Head Master of the school in support of the certificate at Exhibit 41 and PW 8 and PW 9, the doctors who had examined the prosecutrix to determine her age.

¶17

When the prosecutrix was examined in camera, she admitted that she delivered a baby boy during Diwali of 2005. She also admitted that she had developed sexual relationship with one Nitin Mane as well and she had sexual intercourse with the said person in the month of February 2005 as well. She

¶18

¶19

also stated that said Nitin Mane had also expressed his love and desire to marry her and, therefore, she continued with the relationship. This Nitin Mane was not the accused. The defence of the accused was that he had never promised the prosecutrix to marry her and knowing the relationship between the parties, there could not have been any matrimonial ties between the two families. It was their case that when the marriage proposal was turned down, the bogus complaint came to be filed against the family. The trial Court, on the basis of the medical evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor and after considering the evidence of all the witnesses held that there was no cogent and reliable evidence of forcible sexual relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused. We are satisfied that the reasoning so set out by the trial Court does not call for any reconsiderations by this Court.

¶20

Hence leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected.

¶21

(R.Y.GANOO,J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Shashikant Maruti Barde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Shashikant Maruti Barde

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

The State of Maharashtra . Vs Mangesh Madhukar Bhingarde .

Harendra Daulatrai Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Manilal Jhaveri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Siddik Imemuddin Maniyar. Vs State of Maharashtra.

Ganesh Babusingh Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Premnagar Scoters Colony Rahiwashi Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.