Bombay HC: Discrepancies In Statement by Victim In Cases of Sexual Assault Result In Unreliable Evidence

Must Read

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Follow us

It is the criminal appeal against judgment dated on 10.01.2019 by Additional Session Judge, Pune in Spl. S.C. No. 299 of 2016 for the conviction under Section 376(D) read with Section 107 of IPC, Section 506(II) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 11(i) punishable under Sections 12 of POCSO Act.

Brief Facts 

The accused no.2,Varsha Gaikwad is the sister in law of the complainant residing in Mundhwa, Pune and the complainant resides in Buldhana along with her husband and other family members. During vacation, the mother of the complainant along with the victim went into the complainant house on 13.04.2016 wherein her parents, brother and his wife (accused no.2) resides.

The victim disclosed that accused no.2 took her to Khardi, Pune to house of accused No. 4 – Prashant Gaikwad and accused no.1 in a flat. The accused no.2 instructed the victim to be in a physical relationship with accused no.1 and marry him.

Subsequently, accused no.2 took her to Gairan wherein accused no.1 and accused no.3 (applicant) had a physical relationship about which the victim was forced to remain quiet. Thus, FIR on 31.5.2016 does not mention the alleged incident of rape of victim. 

The complainant is the mother of the victim and on return to Mundhwa house on 25.05.2016, she came to know about the incident on 28.05.2016 after which the complainant and victim returned back to their house in Buldhana. The complainant registered the FIR in Mundhwa Police Station on 31.05.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 12 and 17 of POCSO Act.

Arguments of the Appellant 

The Counsel pleads before the court that the entire allegation against the applicant is based on false premises. The delay in lodging FIR was a necessary factor for construction of false story of rape between victim and complainant alongside rape accusation was absent on previous statements.

Furthermore, there is no mention of sexual assault by victim in the said FIR and in the statement of  victim and therefore it can be inferred that there was no involvement of applicant in the rape incident but only caught hold of her hands.

There was also no medical examination that supported her rape accusation through the statement that there was no injury on the body of the victim but hymen was completely torn and multiple tears were evident. The victim submits one incident of sexual assault and therefore, there is no connection with alleged incident.

It was further submitted by the counsel that complainant along with the victim admitted that she had visited the police station four times till 04.06.2016 but victim did not state any incident of sexual assault with her by accused even when asked by the police officers in the station.

Arguments of the respondent 

The Counsel submits before the court that the victim was a minor child under 12 years of age and was thus incapable of forming any ill intention to falsely charge the applicant with such heinous crime that all accused sexually assaulted her.

The medical report is in consonance with the alleged incident. Moreover, accused no.2 filed complaint under section 498A of IPC after alleged incident and registration of FIR. Therefore, accused had subjected the victim to such a serious offence of rape. 

Court’s observation 

It was observed by this Court that a supplementary statement of complainant and statement of victim was recorded on 09.06.2016. It was disclosed that on 14.05.2016, accused no.2 took the victim to the victim’s grandfather house where accused no.1, 3 and 4 were invited.

Thereafter, accused no.2 threw the victim on the floor and accused no.4 caught hold of her legs and accused no.1 of her hands. The accused no.1 committed sexual assault on the victim with the help of co-accused and threatened her that they would kill her family members if she informs anyone about the incident.

The Court while dealing with the decision of this case took into consideration the nature of offence and applicant grant of bail on basis of allegation in FIR, imprisonment sentence could be suspended. Thereafter, on additional charges of sexual assault were framed which lead to rearrest of accused.   

Court’s Decision 

The court concluded that because of contradiction and discrepancies in the statement of victims in FIR on 31.05.2016 and her statement on 09.06.2016 shows that various infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witness (P.W.4 as victim and P.W.1 as complainant).

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -