Dismissed

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Brahmapuri Distt Chandrapur v. Pramod Vithoba Thakare

Bombay HC27 Sept 2012APPA/721/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal. The court held that the Sessions Judge's view, based on medical evidence suggesting an old injury and conflicting FIRs, was a possible view and not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is refused; criminal appeal against acquittal is dismissed.

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

27.9APPA721.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 721/12 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra .vs. Pramod Vithoba Thakare

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Mr. R.S. Nayak, A.P.P. for appellant.

¶7

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶8

DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2012.

¶9

By this application, the applicant/State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 16.6.2012 in Sessions Case No. 180/11 acquitting the respondent/accused for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

According to prosecution, the prosecutrix PW.3, whose name is deliberately withheld, was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the respondent/accused on 23.7.2011 at about 9 p.m. The First Information Report which was initially lodged complained of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix. Subsequent thereto, a report came to be lodged complaining therein that the victim PW.3 was ravished by the respondent/ accused. The prosecutrix was examined by the Medical

¶11

¶12

27.9APPA721.12

¶13

Officer PW.4 Dr. Deepti Shrirame, who noticed that the hymen was torn circumferentially which was an old tear. She has further opined that the tear of the hymen and the painful vagina were indicative of the fact that either a finger or a penis might have been inserted in the private part of the victim. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the injury which was noticed on the person of the victim on examination by PW.4 Dr. Shrirame did not correspond with the date of the incident. Coupled with this, the fact that the initial report was in respect of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent report complained of ravishing, the trial Court extended benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted him.

¶14

With the assistance of the learned A.P.P., we have examined the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon such examination, according to us, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶15

Judge

¶16

Judge

¶17

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Brahmapuri Distt Chandrapur v. Pramod Vithoba Thakare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Brahmapuri Distt Chandrapur v. Pramod Vithoba Thakare

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

Dr Shyamrao S/O Ghamaji Bade and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Pramod S/O Balkrishna Vaidya (in Jail) Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Narkhed P.S.

Sanjay S/O Purushottam Narkhede (in Jail) Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., Pratap Nagar Police Station

Mohammad Wasim Md. Imam Bhiwaniwale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Superintendent of Prison Amravati

Manohar S/O Jangluji Surjuse (in Central Prison) Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O.

Pravin S/O Manohar Dhabekar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Hudkeshwar