Dismissed

Madhavi Ramdas Lonare v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Aug 2023WP/2143/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of a victim's application to re-examine her testimony in a POCSO case. The High Court upheld the lower court's refusal, finding the application lacked merit as the victim offered no reasonable ground to contradict her evidence and her change of stance appeared frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned order rejecting the application for re-examination was affirmed.

Madhavi Ramdas Lonare Vs State of Maharashtra — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/3 11 WP-2143-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2143 OF 2023

¶3

Madhavi Ramdas Lonare .. Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Ms. Divya Parab i/b Mr. Abhijeet F Khade for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Khot for respondent. Mr. S.S. Holke, APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 23^rd AUGUST, 2023

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

1 The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29/04/2023, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, rejected the application filed, seeking her re-examination.

¶9

The application filed and exhibited as exhibit-148 came to be filed by the victim on 19/04/2023 and infact it is a communication addressed to the learned Judge and the subject mentioned, is the change in her deposition.

¶10

2 The applicant is a victim, who had lodged a complaint to the concerned police station on 13/07/2020 against two accused persons alleging that she was subjected to sexual assault between the year 2017 and 2019 and this resulted in invocation of Section 376, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and section 4, 8

¶11

Ashish

¶12

2/3 11 WP-2143-23.doc

¶13

and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The victim was referred for medical examination and the report referred to multiple old heal hymenal tears.

¶14

3 The accused persons being subjected to trial, the victim entered into the witness-box and her cross-examination was completed on 25/11/2022.

¶15

On 5/01/2023, she filed an application for recalling her in the witness-box and it is informed that, when this application was filed, she was in the child remand home.

¶16

On 23/03/2023, she made a request to the learned Judge, that she is not desirous of pressing the said application and her evidence recorded on 25/11/2022, shall be considered as valid, as a result the application filed by her was not pressed.

¶17

The Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted the response to the application filed by the victim and supported the case that she should be recalled and re-examined for just decision of the case.

¶18

4 Once again on 19/04/2023, the victim moved the application, where she stated that she was constantly followed by the father of the accused persons, who threatened her. It is her submission that she was asked to write a letter, which she scribed in her friend’s handwriting and was even offered money and but since she was not ready to grant any favour to the accused, though she accepted the money, she left it in a temple.

¶19

Certain other instances are also narrated in the complaint, which prima facie in my view do not inspire

¶20

Ashish

¶21

3/3 11 WP-2143-23.doc

¶22

confidence and this was the reaction of the learned Judge, who did not find merit in the said application and specifically recorded, that she had not pressed the earlier application filed at exhibit-109 and though she had made reference to the threats given to her, she never spoke about this, when she was under examination and also when she gave a statement in writing on 23/03/2023.

¶23

5 On discerning a scope of Section 311 of CrPC, i.e. power to examining the person in present and for recalling witnesses and re-examine such witness, the Additional Sessions Judge has recorded the conclusion as under:

¶24

“In the present case nothing is contained in the cross examination of the victim against her evidence in chief which could be explained or made clear by reexamination of the victim vide Section 138 of the Evidence Act or Section 311 of Cr.P.C.”

¶25

6 Even, I do not find any merit in the application since her approach is not bonafide, as the victim had earlier turned hostile and now claim that she was coerced to do so, on account of the threats administered to her by the father of the accused persons. This is nothing but an attempt on her part to go back on her testimony, which is impermissible on ground of change of heart.

¶26

Hence, the application, being frivolous do not warrant consideration & is rejected.

¶27

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶28

Ashish

Madhavi Ramdas Lonare v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhavi Ramdas Lonare v. 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

Mayur Manoj Mulik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

State of Maharashtra Vs Majnuali Rabiul Sardar

Yash Ketan Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jai Kumar Madhusudan Birla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gautam Ganesh Ailinje Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shyamalendu Kumar Das Vs Union of India and Anr.