In this Criminal Appeal, the State challenged the acquittal of the accused for rape and other offences. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case and the acquittal was correct. Leave to appeal was refused.
Leave to appeal refused; Criminal Application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009
The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant
Vs.
Sunil Shantaram Sapkal
..Respondent
Smt. V.R. Bhosale, APP for applicant-State.
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ.
November 18, 2009.
P.C.
We have heard Smt. Bhosale, the learned APP. We have perused the reasoning set out in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge at Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 499 of 2006 against which leave to appeal is sought in this application.
As per the prosecution case, the respondent-accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and Section 377 of IPC and the victim was a minor girl of about 9 years. The prosecution appears to have examined in all 12 witnesses and we have considered the evidence of PW 7 – Dr. Pratap and PW 11 – Dr.
2
Urmila Bhor. Medical certificate at Exh.22 as well as the medical case papers at Exhs. 40 and 41 have also been considered by us. In our opinion, the learned trial court rightly held that the prosecution could not prove its case of rape of the minor girl as well as the case of offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC. The order of acquittal, in our opinion, does not call for any reconsideration at the hands of this court.
Hence, leave to appeal is refused and consequently, the application is
rejected.
(R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge dismissing the charge of rape under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and offence under Section 377 IPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Sunil Shantaram Sapkal
B.H. Marlapalle
R.Y. Ganoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
