Allowed

Changdeo Dnyanu Buchade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jul 2012APEAL/366/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for rape under IPC Sections 376 and 341. High Court acquitted the appellant, finding the trial Judge unjustified due to hostile witnesses, lack of forensic semen stains, and medical certificate not indicating complete intercourse.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code; conviction and sentence set aside.

Changdeo Dnyanu Buchade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1Apeal 366-94.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.366 OF 1994

¶5

Changdeo Dnyanu Buchade.Appellant
Indian Citizen, Adult,
Occu:Agriculturist,
R/o. Shene, Taluka:Walwa,
District:Sangli.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.Respondent

¶8

Mr.Bhushan Walimbe, Advocate, for the Appellant
Ms V.S.Mhaispurkar, APP, for the Respondent -
State

¶9

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:17TH JULY, 2012

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

.This appeal is directed against

¶12

appellant's conviction by the learned Additional

¶13

Sessions Judge, Sangli for the offences
punishable under Sections 376 and 341 of the

¶14

Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous

¶15

imprisonment for five years with a fine of
Rs.3,000/- and simple imprisonment for one year

¶16

2Apeal 366-94.odt

¶17

with a fine of Rs.500/- imposed upon him for the

¶18

two offences on conclusion of Sessions Case
No.151 of 1992 before him.

¶19

2.Facts which are material for deciding
this appeal are as under :-

¶20

The victim, who was about 17½ years old,

¶21

was working in the field of one Shivaji Nikam
along with her mother and other labourers. At
about 2:30 p.m., the appellant is alleged to
have pulled her inside sugar cane crop and then
committed a rape upon her, as the co-accused,
who has been acquitted, was instigating the
appellant to go ahead. On a report by the
victim, an offence was registered. The victim
was sent for medical examination, in course of
which necessary biological samples were taken.
Her clothes were seized. She showed the spot

¶22

and police drew up a panchanama of the spot.

¶23

The appellant was immediately arrested. His
clothes were seized and were also sent for
medicalexamination.Incourseof

¶24

3Apeal 366-94.odt

¶25

investigation, police recorded statements of
witnesses and on completion of investigation,
sent charge sheet to the Court of Judicial
Magistrate F. C., Islampur, who committed the
case to the Court of Session at Sangli.

¶26

3.The learned Additional Sessions Judge
to whom the case was made over, charged the
appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 376 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code

¶27

and charged co-accused for the offence
punishable under Section 109 read with Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code. Since they
pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at
which the prosecution examined in all six
witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of
the accused persons. After considering their

¶28

evidence in the light of defence of denial of
false implications, the learned trial Judge

¶29

convicted and sentenced the appellant as
aforementioned and acquitted the co-accused.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred

¶30

4Apeal 366-94.odt

¶31

this appeal.

¶32

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶33

appellant and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent – State. With the
help of both the learned counsel I have gone
through the evidence on record. PW-1 victim had
turned hostile. Even in course of cross
examination by the learned APP, she went only so
far as to state that the appellant pulled her
inside sugar cane crop but stopped short of
stating that she was raped. PW-3 her mother,
Godabai Sheshappa Sarje also turned hostile and
did not support the prosecution case. She
stated in her cross examination that a false
complaint was filed against the appellant at the
instance of Balu Patil to prevent the appellant
from visiting the victim. PW-2 Gajanan Maruti
Dambe is a panch on spot panchanama at Exhibit
12. PW-4 Dr. Bhikaji Nivrutti Vanjare referred
the victim to the Civil Hospital at Sangli. PW-
5 Dr. Manohar Shankar Chavan did not actually

¶34

5Apeal 366-94.odt

¶35

examine the victim but prepared Certificate on
the basis of observations of Dr. Deshpande and
Dr. Kulkarni. PW-6 API Kallappa Ramchandra
Sarde had conducted the investigation.

¶36

5.In spite of refusal by prosecutrix and

¶37

her mother to support case of rape, the learned
trial Judge convicted the appellant holding that
there would have been no occasion for the victim
to immediately report about rape to the police,
if there was no such incident. The learned
Judge seems to have overlooked the report from

¶38

the Forensic Science Laboratory which does not

¶39

show any stains of semen on the victim's
biological samples taken by the Medical officer
or on her clothes. The learned Judge also
failed to note that the Medical Certificate at
Exhibit 25 is not indicative of complete
penetrative intercourse. The Certificate

¶40

mentions about two old tears at 2nd and 10th O'

¶41

clock position and a fresh tear of hymen at 6th
O' Clock position. The learned Judge should,

¶42

6Apeal 366-94.odt

¶43

therefore, have seen that the victim was
possibly telling the truth when she stated about
her being pulled inside sugar cane crop and

¶44

stopped short of stating that there was
intercourse with her. In the face of this
evidence, the learned Judge was thoroughly
unjustified in holding the appellant guilty of
the offences punishable under Sections 376 and
341 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶45

6.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

¶46

Conviction of the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 376 and 341 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for five years with a fine of
Rs.3,000/- and simple imprisonment for one year
with a fine of Rs.500/- is set aside. Appellant
is acquitted for the above said offences.

Changdeo Dnyanu Buchade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Changdeo Dnyanu Buchade 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

Vijaykumar Narayan Yemul . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Rishikant @ Babu Ravindra Raut and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Easter Navelson Massi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gopal Ramaswamy Devendar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishorebhai M. Jani @ Ramu Maharaj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shabbir Haroon Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra