Dismissed

Suvarna Baba Dombale v. Sambhaji Anna Tambe and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2013APEAL/757/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by an original rape complainant against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2010, the High Court upheld the trial judge's decision. The Court found no illegality in the lower court's appreciation of evidence, including the victim's delay in disclosing the incident and the medical officer's testimony suggesting consensual intercourse. The appeal against the acquitta

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed against the order of acquittal was dismissed.

Suvarna Baba Dombale Vs Sambhaji Anna Tambe and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

vss

¶2

apeal.757.2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.757 OF 2013

¶5

Suvarna Baba Dombale ... Appellant

¶6

(Orig. complainant)

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Shri Sambhaji Anna Tambe & anr. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr.Prashant Hagare for the Appellant Ms.V.R. Bhonsale, APP, for Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM: MRS.V.K. TAHILRAMANI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE: AUGUST 1, 2013

¶12

ORAL ORDER (PER MRS.BHATKAR, J.):

¶13

The appellant is allegedly a victim of rape and the original complainant in Sessions Case No.20 of 2010. Respondent No.1 was accused in the said Sessions Case. He was charged for the offences punishable u/s 376, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dated 26.11.2012, the learned additional Sessions Judge, Baramati has acquitted the accused from all the offences. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant / original complainant has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the accused.

¶14

The appellant is a married woman and was residing with her husband at Pansarewad, Taluka Baramati, District Pune. The couple was having a son aged about 6 years and a daughter of 3 years old. On

¶15

1 / 3

¶16

apeal.757.2013

¶17

29.9.2009, the incident has taken place at 8 pm. The accused arrived at their house, took her husband at Tambevasti for a religious function. According to the prosecutrix, at around 9.30 pm, she received a phone on the cellphone of her husband, which her husband had left in the house, and the accused told her on the phone that he had killed her husband and, therefore, she should come out of the house. She came out of the house. The accused was standing outside her house, shut her mouth and dragged her behind her house to the nearby crop of Bajra. She forcibly removed her clothes and raped her. She tried to raise shouts but the accused had threatened her that he would kill her husband. He let her go and she came home. Her husband arrived there at around 11.30pm. She did not tell anything to her husband. They both slept. In the morning on 30.9.2009, she was feeling uneasy. So, she disclosed the incident to her husband. Then her husband discussed the matter with her brother-in-law and then they went to the police station at Supa and reported the matter to the police. The police recorded FIR and lodged C.R. No.105 of 2009 against the accused charging the accused for the offence of rape.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in relying on minor inconsistencies, contradictions in the evidence; the learned trial Judge ought not to have relied on the evidence of the Medical Officer, who has stated that the victim gave him history of consensual sexual intercourse.

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

apeal.757.2013

¶21

Perused the record and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After going through the judgment, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses, especially the appellant – victim (PW1). The appellant was married having two children. However, she did not disclose the incident immediately to her husband. She did not raise shouts. The threat given to her and her perception of the threat does not appear so grave, which constrained her to keep mum. We do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and we are not inclined to interfere with the said judgment.

¶22

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶23

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶24

(MRS.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶25

3 / 3

Suvarna Baba Dombale v. Sambhaji Anna Tambe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvarna Baba Dombale v. Sambhaji Anna Tambe and Anr.

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

Vijay Harishchandra Mangela and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arvind Ashok Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sitaram Baban Kudekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prabhakar Ambaji Bhagwat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish Bansu Kharwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Hanmant Gavandi Vs the State of Maharashtra