Dismissed

Yogesh Prakash Bhole v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Jan 2023APEAL/112/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court criminal appellate jurisdiction disposed of an appeal challenging conviction under Section 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC. Court upheld conviction based on prosecutrix and son's corroborative testimony, rejecting medical report objections and delay defenses.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge at Islampur dated 15/10/2020 upheld.

Yogesh Prakash Bhole Vs the State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶2

1 of 16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2022

¶5

Yogesh Prakash Bhole..Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶6

Mr. Shailesh A. Chavan (Appointed Advocate) for Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 7 JANUARY 2023

¶8

JUDGMENT:

¶9

1.The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order
dated 15/10/2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge &
D.J.-1, Islampur, in Sessions Case No.20 of 2019. The Appellant
was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.376(2)(f)
of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer
S.I. for two months. He was also convicted for commission of
offence punishable U/s.506 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to
suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default

¶10

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.11 10:30:50 +0530

¶11

Gokhale

¶12

2 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶13

of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month. Both the
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The
Appellant was granted set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c. The Appellant
was acquitted from the charges of commission of offence
punishable U/s.342 of the I.P.C.

¶14

2.Heard Shri. Shailesh Chavan, learned appointed
Advocate for the Appellant and Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the
State/Respondent.

¶15

3.The prosecution case is that the Appellant was the
maternal cousin of the prosecutrix’s husband. The incident took
place on 01/11/2018 in the afternoon. The prosecutrix was
staying with her mother in law, her husband and two sons. On the
date of incident her husband was not present. He had gone to a
different city to attend his job. He was a cleaner on the truck,
therefore, he used to go for his job at least 8 to 10 days in a
month. On the date of incident, her mother in law had gone out.
The Appellant came to the prosecutrix’s house. He gave some
money to her son to buy something. Her sons went out. At that

¶16

3 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶17

time, the prosecutrix was alone in the house. The Appellant took
advantage of the situation and committed rape on her.

¶18

4.In the meantime, the prosecutrix’s son returned home.

¶19

The Appellant then went away; but before going he threatened
her. When her mother in law returned, the prosecutrix told her
about the incident. But she advised the prosecutrix to keep quiet
and not to disclose this incident to any one else, to avoid loss of
reputation. In that night, the prosecutrix was having pain in her
abdomen. On the next day, she went to a Doctor, but she did not
get herself admitted in the hospital. Then she went to her parent’s
house on the advise of her brother. Her sister and brother gave her
support and courage and after that, she approached the police
station and gave her complaint. The F.I.R. was lodged vide
C.R.No.63 of 2018 at Kokrud police station. It was lodged in the
midnight of 03/11/2018 and 04/11/2018. The Appellant was
arrested on 04/11/2018. The Appellant and the victim were sent
for medical examination. Their clothes were seized. The spot
panchanama was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded. The articles were sent for chemical analysis. At the

¶20

4 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶21

completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed.

¶22

5.During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses
including the prosecutrix, her son, the panchas, the Medical
Officers and the Investigating Officer. The defence of the Appellant
was of total denial. According to him, on the day of incident he
was not present in the village of the prosecutrix. In his written
statement, he mentioned that his family was having dispute with
the prosecutrix’s husband’s family in respect of an agricultural
land, therefore, this false complaint was lodged on 04/11/2018.
No such incident had taken place.

¶23

6.Learned Trial Judge considered the evidence and the
defence taken by the Appellant. After considering the submissions,
learned Judge recorded his finding of guilt against the Appellant.

¶24

7.PW-1 was the prosecutrix herself. She has deposed that,
she used to stay with her husband, son, daughter and other family
members. Her husband was working as a Cleaner. On 01/11/2018,
her mother in law had gone to an agricultural field. Her husband
was in Mumbai. She was not feeling well and, therefore, she was

¶25

5 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶26

in her house. The Appellant came to her house at around 3.00p.m.
She gave him water and tea. He then requested for some snacks.
Thereafter, he gave money to the prosecutrix’s children. They went
away. After that he bolted the door from inside and forcibly
committed rape on the prosecutrix. Since she was sick, she could
not resist; but she raised shouts. There was nobody in the vicinity.
The Appellant threatened to commit her murder. After that, PW-1
was feeling pain in her abdomen and there was bleeding.
Therefore, she went to sleep. Her mother in law returned in the
evening. PW-1 told her about the incident, but her mother in law
told her not to disclose this incident to her husband. On the next
day, her husband returned. He took PW-1 to the hospital. The
Doctor advised her to get admitted in the hospital, but she refused
because she had to look after her small child. They returned home
at 4 O’clock in the afternoon. She called her brother and requested
her to take her to her parent’s house. But her brother was busy and
he told her to come to his village by an S.T. bus. She went there.
Her mother and sister inquired with her. She told them everything.
On the next day, she went to Kokrud police station with her

¶27

6 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶28

brother and sister and with their support she could lodge the F.I.R.
The F.I.R. is produced on record at Exhibit 14. Then she was
referred for medical examination. Her statement was recorded
U/s.164 of the Cr.p.c. Her statement is produced on record at
Exhibit 16.

¶29

In the cross-examination, she deposed that, before her
marriage she had no relation with the Appellant. Her parent’s
house was about 5 Km. distance from her husband’s village. The
Appellant’s mother used to reside at prosecutrix’s mother in law’s
native place. The prosecutrix’s mother in law had an agricultural
land at that place. The Appellant’s mother used to visit the
prosecutirx’s family some times. Before the incident, the Appellant
had visited their house one year ago. When she was cross
examined about the locality around her house; she stated that,
there were other houses near her house. There was one more
house adjoining to the prosecutrix’s house. She admitted that, in
the incident she did not suffer any injury. She tried to resist and at
that time even the Appellant did not suffer any injuries. There
were some minor contradictions from her statement recorded

¶30

7 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶31

U/s.164 of the Cr.p.c., but those contradictions are not really
material. She further stated that, on the next day of the incident,
her husband had not returned home and she was in the hospital
for the entire day. She met her husband on the 3rd day in the same
hospital. From the hospital, she went to her parent’s house and
then she lodged the F.I.R. The F.I.R. mentions that, she had gone to
hospital on 02/11/2018 with her husband. On 03/11/2018, again
they went to the hospital and then they returned home at around
4.00p.m. After that she called her brother and then went to her
parent’s house by an S.T. bus at 5.30p.m.

¶32

8.PW-2 was the son of PW-1. He has deposed that, he had
returned home from school at 1.00p.m. on 01/11/2018. At around
3.00p.m. the Appellant came to their house. PW-2 was playing
with his younger brother. The Appellant gave him Rs.10/- to buy
biscuits. Therefore, PW-2 and his brother went to a shop. After
some time they returned. The door was closed. He gave a call to
his mother. The Appellant opened the door. He was wearing his
clothes. The Appellant threatened PW-1 in presence of this witness
and then went away. PW-1 was crying. She told PW-2 that she was

¶33

8 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶34

suffering from pain in her stomach. On the next day, PW-1 went to
her parent’s house.

¶35

In the cross-examination, he stated that, his other
relative was residing near their house, but they were not on talking
terms. He knew the Appellant since many days. On the date of
incident his own father had gone to attend his work. He denied the
suggestion that, PW-1 herself gave him money and sent him out to
buy biscuits. According to him, his father had not returned on the
next day. He met his father only after 2 to 3 days. He admitted that
the police recorded his statement as told by PW-1.

¶36

9.PW-3 Subhash Khilare is a pancha for spot panchanama
which is produced on record at Exhibit 20. PW-4 Devendra Dhas
was a pancha for the panchanamas under which the clothes of the
prosecutrix and the Appellant were seized. These panchanamas are
produced on record at Exhibit 22 and 23.

¶37

10.PW-5 Dr. Salma Inamdar was attached to the Rural
Hospital of the prosecutrix’s village. On 04/11/2018, at about
2.00p.m., she had examined the prosecutrix. She was having pain

¶38

9 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶39

in the abdomen and, therefore, as it was a case of rape, PW-5
referred her to Civil Hospital, Sangli. She had taken blood samples,
vaginal swab and nail clippings etc. and handed them over to a
police constable.

¶40

In the cross-examination, she admitted that, she had
not seen any external injuries on the prosecutrix. The medical
papers in respect of her examination are produced on record at
Exhibit 28.

¶41

11.PW-6 Dr. Mahananda Hubale was attached to Civil

¶42

Hospital, Sangli. The prosecutrix was brought to her at 5.25p.m.
on 04/11/2018. She examined her. She took down her history of
the incident. She was complaining of the pain in her abdomen. She
was referred to the gynecology department and then to Surgery
department, but she was not willing to get admitted in the
hospital. There was some tiny calculi in her kidney.

¶43

In the cross-examination, she stated that, during
forceful assault possibility of external and internal injuries could
not be ruled out. During the menstruation period, there can be

¶44

10 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶45

abdominal pain and general weakness. She was not in a position to
comment whether rape was committed. According to her, she
could not opine about that, as she was not from the gynecology
department. But she admitted that the gynecology department also
did not mention that rape was committed on the prosecutrix.

¶46

12.PW-7 Shivaji Gawade, P.S.I. was the investigating officer.
He has deposed that, he conducted the investigation of C.R.No.63
of 2018 registered at Kokrud police station. He had arrested the
appellant on 04/11/2018. He then conducted the spot
panchanama. He sent the prosecutrix for medical examination.
The articles were sent for chemical analysis. He recorded the
statements of the witnesses and at the completion of the
investigation he had filed the charge-sheet.

¶47

13.In the cross-examination, she deposed that there was
one house adjoining to the house of the Appellant. The other
houses were situated around 5 to 10 feet from the prosecutrix’s
house. According to him, he did not record the statements of the
witnesses from the locality because they were not present around

¶48

11 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶49

the time of incident. The shop where the prosecutrix’s son had
gone was about 10 minutes walking distance from her house.

¶50

14.The Appellant examined the defense witness Dr. Namdeo
Khade. He was having a hospital at Bambavade. On 02/11/2018,
the prosecutrix had come to his hospital as an outdoor patient. She
told him that she was having epigastric pain. He advised her to get
admitted in the hospital, but she refused. Then she was treated as
an outdoor patient. On 03/11/2018, again she had come to his
hospital. She was again treated as an outdoor patient.

¶51

15.Apart from this oral evidence, the C.A. reports are

¶52

produced on record, but those C.A. reports do not throw light on
the case at all.

¶53

16.Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
Appellant is implicated falsely because of dispute between the
prosecutrix’s husband’s family and the Appellant’s family in respect
of agricultural lands. The Appellant was not present in the
prosecutrix’s village at the time of the incident and he is falsely
implicated. The F.I.R. was not lodged immediately and the delay is

¶54

12 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶55

inordinate. The delay is not explained. No independent witness is
examined who could have seen the Appellant entering the house of
the prosecutrix. The medical evidence does not suggest
commission of rape. He submitted that, learned Trial Judge did not
take into account the defence of the appellant and the evidence of
defense witness.

¶56

17.Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to
him, the prosecutrix’s evidence is reliable and based on that
evidence itself, the conviction can be recorded. He further
submitted that, there was no reason for the prosecutrix to
implicate the Appellant falsely. Her evidence is corroborated by her
son’s evidence. The absence of injuries on the prosecutrix was not
very material because she was a married lady. He further
submitted that, though there is some confusion as to on which
date her husband had returned, it is not very material, because the
fact remains that her husband had not supported her in registering
the F.I.R. She had gone to her parent’s house and with support of
her brother and sister, she had registered the F.I.R. Her clear case is
that, there was no consent. Her mother in law had stopped her

¶57

13 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶58

from telling about the incident to her husband and, therefore,
because of that pressure, she had not told about this incident; even
to her husband.

¶59

18.I have considered these submissions. In this case, the
evidence of PW-1 is the most important piece of evidence.
Therefore, her evidence is required to be scrutinized carefully. She
had described the incident with sufficient clarity and detail. The
defense has not brought on record any reason as to why the
Appellant would have been falsely implicated by PW-1. The
dispute as alleged by the Appellant himself in his statement was
between PW-1’s husband’s family and the Appellant’s family.
However, significantly, the mother in law did not support PW-1 and
did not help her in lodging the F.I.R. In fact, she had stopped PW-1
from telling this fact to others. PW-1’s husband was not told about
the incident and she had gone to her parent’s house to seek
support. With the support of her brother and sister she had
approached the police station and had lodged the F.I.R. All these
factors show that, there is no substance in the submission that the
appellant is implicated falsely because of enmity between PW-1’s

¶60

14 of 16

¶61

213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶62

husband’s family and the Appellant’s family.

¶63

19.PW-1’s evidence is corroborated by her son PW-2’s

¶64

evidence on material particulars. PW-2 was sent out by the
Appellant to buy biscuits. While PW-2 and his brother were away
and when PW-1 was alone in the house, the Appellant had
committed this offence. When PW-2 returned home, he saw that
the Appellant was wearing his clothes and he had threatened PW-
2’s mother i.e. PW-1. Though, in the cross-examination he has
deposed that, he had given his statement before the police at the
instance of his mother, but there is nothing to indicate that his
deposition in the Court was a result of tutoring from his mother.
Therefore, evidence of PW-2 lends corroboration to the evidence of
PW-1 on material aspects as mentioned earlier.

¶65

20.Though, there are no other corroborating pieces of
evidence in the form of C.A. reports or medical examination; as
rightly submitted by learned APP and as is rightly discussed by
learned Trial Judge in paragraph 36 of the impugned Judgment;
absence of injuries in this particular case did not indicate that the

¶66

15 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶67

offence had not taken place. Learned Trial Judge had rightly relied
on the presumption U/s.114-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Even
DW-1’s evidence does not help the defense. It only indicates that
the prosecutrix had gone to his hospital on the next day i.e. on
02/11/2018 and also on 03/11/2018. Whether PW-1’s husband
had accompanied her on those occasions was not mentioned by
him, but his evidence was restricted only to the fact that on those
two days the prosecutrix had gone to his hospital for treatment.
The defence wanted to take advantage of this evidence to submit
that PW-1 had not made any grievance before this doctor. But, as is
discussed earlier, her mother in law had prevented her from
disclosing this incident. Only after her brother and sister had given
her courage on her returning to her parent’s house, she had lodged
the F.I.R. In this background, it cannot be said that there was
delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prosecutrix had approached the
police station on 03/11/2018 itself. The F.I.R. was lodged in the
midnight and, therefore, the date of F.I.R. appears to be
04/11/2018. PW-1 has given acceptable reasons for not
approaching the police on the very day of occurrence. Considering

¶68

16 of 16213-apeal-112-22 (Judgment)

¶69

all these aspects, there is no circumstance which makes PW-1’s
deposition doubtful. Therefore, in this case, the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant.
Learned Trial Judge has considered all these aspects properly.
Minimum sentence is imposed upon the Appellant and there is no
scope to reduce it further. Hence, I do not find any merit in the
Appeal.

¶70

21. The Appeal is dismissed.

¶71

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Yogesh Prakash Bhole v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Prakash Bhole 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

Jilani Badshaha Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrutunjay Parmatma Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sameer Shashikant Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parashuram @ Prashant Hariba Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manoj Shankar Naik Vs State of Maharashtra

Parashuram @ Prashant Hariba Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.