VIMAL SURESH KAMBLE Vs. CHALUVERAPINAKE APAL S P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the complainant/informant against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1992 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 herein and acquitted him of the charges under Ss. 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has not preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as a domestic help in five flats in Vasant Vihar Society Building, Thane, Mumbai including the flat of respondent No. 1 herein which was located on the second floor. She used to clean utensils and clothes in his flat for which she was paid Rs. 80/- per month. Respondent No. 1 resided in that flat with his wife and two children. On 17th April, 1992 his wife and children had left for the village. While going to the village his wife had given to the appellant duplicate keys of the flat and had requested her to clean utensils as also to cook food for her husband for which she promised her additional payment on her return. Usually respondent No. 1 was away to his office on working days when the appellant went to work at about 11.30 a.m., but on Saturdays and Sundays respondent No. 1 used to remain in his flat during those hours. She used to open the flat with the keys given to her and did her work. On Sunday, 26th April, 1992, as usual, she went to the flat of respondent No. 1 and started working. When she went into the bed-room to sweep the room, Respondent No. 1 switched off the light of the bed room and caught hold of her. She started shouting but no one came to her rescue. Thereafter respondent No. 1 raped her despite her protests. The time then was about 12.30 p.m. because she could hear the siren which used to be blown at 12.30 p.m. After he raped her, he took the lungi and hs underwear to the bath room for washing. While he was doing so, the appellant also wore her underwear and went to the main door. The respondent No. 1 came behind her and called her inside the flat, but she started crying loudly. Respondent No. 1 requested her not to shout and create a scene and also begged her forgiveness. However, she came out telling him that she would be going to the police station. Thereafter she went to the ground floor and was sitting there for sometime. Thereafter she again went upstairs to the flat of respondent No. 1. When she reached the second floor, she noticed that a neighbour residing in the adjacent flat had come out and their 1 1/2 years old daughter was playing with the chain of the door of the flat of respondent No. 1. They asked her if respondent No. 1 was at home and she replied that she would see whether he was at home or not. She thereafter opened the door with the keys which she had with her. She was asked by that neighbour as to what had happened and she replied by saying that she will tell everything after his (respondent No. 1) wife returned. She entered the flat to find out whether respondent No. 1 was there and found that he was not there. She then locked the door and went home. The time then was about 1.30 p.m. as stated in the First Information Report. She thereafter took her bath, washed her clothes and took two sleeping pills and went to sleep. She got up at 5.30 p.m. but did not report the incident to her husband when he returned home from duty, for fear that he would drive her out. That was also the reason why she did not go to the police station to lodge a complaint.

(3.) On the next day, she felt guilty and she narrated the incident to her sister-in-law Smt. Tarabai (not examined) and her brothers Baban (P.W. 3) and Subhash (not examined) and one Sh. Manohar Sawant (P.W. 4), a Shivsena leader. She narrated the incident to them at about 2.45 p.m. and then they came to the police station to lodge the complaint. It appears that the First Information Report was lodged at 3.00 p.m. on 27th April, 1992.