Allowed

Arul Raypanna Nathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Nov 2014APPA/895/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC filed by a rape convict. The Court noted evidence of long-standing relationship and lack of plausible explanation for FIR delay, granting bail on RM bond and directing reporting to Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; substantive sentence suspended; bail granted on furnishing RM bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties; applicant directed to report to Court of Sessions.

Arul Raypanna Nathan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

1.appa895.14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 895 OF 2014 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2014

¶5

Arul Raypanna Nathan. ... Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ---

¶8

Mr. Santosh M. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Arfan Sait, APP for Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J DATE : NOVEMBER 15, 2014.

¶11

P.C :

¶12

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State.

¶13

2 This is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for 3 years in Sessions Case No. 177 of 2012 by the

¶14

Talwalkar 1/5

¶15

2 1.appa895.14.sxw

¶16

additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay vide Judgment and Order dated 9^th May, 2015.

¶17

3 The prosecutrix was examined as P.W. 2. The prosecutruix has deposed before the Court that she was acquainted with the accused almost 5 years prior to the incident. He used to visit their locality. According to her, at the time of incident her mother had been to Navalpur, U.P. to look after her grand-mother. She resided in the said place for about 6 months. She had developed family relations with the accused. He used to visit her house quite often. In the examination-inchief she has stated that he had ravished her against her wish. Her mother returned home after 5 months. Her mother had suspected that she had conceived pregnancy. However, the prosecutrix had not disclosed anything to her mother. She was taken to the hospital by her mother. The accused had accompanied her to the hospital. Her mother was of the opinion that if the prosecutrix continued to reside in the said locality, they would be exposed to social obloquy. Therefore, she had requested brother of the accused to keep the prosecutrix with him at Bhiwandi. The prosecutrix resided in the house of the brother of the applicant for about 15 days. Thereafter,

¶18

Talwalkar 2/5

¶19

3 1.appa895.14.sxw

¶20

the accused had taken a room on rent and the prosecutrix was residing with him. The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital on 23^rd May, 2012. She gave birth to a female child. The hospital expenses were borne by the accused/applicant. Thereafter, her mother had enquired with her about the paternity of the daughter and at that stage, she has disclosed that the accused/applicant is the father of her daughter. In the course of cross-examination, she has admitted that in the year 2009 she had visited Bandra Church alongwith her parents and the accused. The accused had purchased the car and the prosecutrix had performed pooja of the said car alongwith her mother. Mother and daughter had travelled in the said car. She has also admitted that she and her mother used to visit places as pillion riders on the motor cycle of the present applicant.

¶21

4 The prosecutrix was confronted with the photographs and she had admitted the said photographs. It is also admitted by her that she had visited Pune in the year 2011 alongwith the present applicant. She had resided with the accused for one month at Bhiwandi. The prosecutrix had also been to Chennai alongwith accused after she had delivered the child. They had resided at Chennai for 20 days. She has

¶22

Talwalkar 3/5

¶23

4 1.appa895.14.sxw

¶24

also admitted that the wife of the applicant had accompanied her and the applicant to Dillupuram Temple. Her mother had also visited Chennai and resided with them at Talihatti at the house of the brother of the accused. She has also admitted that the letter dated 16/7/2012 is written by her to the Senior Inspector of Police, which is at Exh. 22.

¶25

5 There are several admissions in the cross-examination, which would indicate that the prosecutrix and the applicant had consensual sex. She had given birth to her daughter. Her birth certificate is not on record. According to P.W. 1 birth date of the victim girl is 12^th March, 1996. It is true that the victim was a minor. Silence on the part of the prosecutrix not only for 6 months, but till she delivered the child would simply speaks volumes for itself. It is apparent that she had cognition to incident and the consequences of the act and that she was of an understanding age.

¶26

6 In the course of argument, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had taken care of the prosecutrix even after she delivered child. He had not abandoned her. He had taken her alongwith him to Chennai. The mother also stayed with

¶27

Talwalkar 4/5

¶28

5 1.appa895.14.sxw

¶29

them at Chennai. There is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The contents of the letter written by the prosecutrix to the Senior Inspector of Police, when he was in custody cannot be ignored. The applicant has been in jail for more than 3 years and hence, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶30

7 Hence, following order is passed :

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

(i) Application is allowed.

¶33

(ii) The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant is hereby suspended and he be enlarged on bail on furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶34

(iii) Applicant shall report to Court of Sessions, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai once in six months on the date specified by the Sessions Court. Upon failure to attend on two consecutive dates, the concerned Court shall inform the High Court forthwith and take appropriate action.

¶35

9 Application stands disposed of.

¶36

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

¶37

Talwalkar 5/5

Arul Raypanna Nathan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arul Raypanna Nathan 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr Shivaji Sadashiv Mane

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Ujma Atik Patel

Karen Raghunathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahavir Chaturbhan Narvate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sushant Ramesh Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vanitha F. Castelino Vs the State of Maharashtra