NAGORAO SHIVAJI CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned order dated 21/9/1998 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing application for discharge.

(2.) Facts in nutshell are that, prosecutrix Ashabai, aged 10 years, is the daughter of Mohan Bhavale, who was engaged for doing manual work in the fields. On 9/8/1994, accused Balu Vithoba Borude committed rape on the prosecutrix. The incident was witnessed by Raosaheb Chavan. He chastised accused. After the occurrence, prosecutrix returned to her house. She could not control her emotions and, while weeping, narrated the episode to her mother. After some time, Namdeo, brother of accused, came to the house of prosecutrix and took parents of prosecutrix to a private dispensary of Dr. Gandhi. Dr, Gandhi refused to treat the patient as it was a rape case and advised these persons to take the patient to a Government Hospital. As a result, all of them went to Public health Centre at village Kada where the petitioner was working as a Medical officer. The petitioner refused to treat the prosecutrix, unless the parents of the prosecutrix produced a written statement attested by two villagers showing that the injuries are caused by the horn of a bullock. Father of the prosecutrix, therefore, sent someone to the village for bringing witnesses, he brought Jallinder garje and Baliram Gavade. hi the meanwhile, petitioner prepared a written statement in the form of an undertaking that the injuries are caused to the prosecutrix by horn of a bullock and that he does not intend to prosecute any person. On arrival of witnesses, thumb impressions of the father and signatures of witnesses were obtained on the statement written on the reverse side of the o. P. D. paper. After compliance of the condition put by him, the petitioner treated the prosecutrix. As it was a tear the injury required three stitches. The parents of prosecutrix were, then, asked to go back and not to make any complaint about the occurrence. Thereafter, on the same day i. e. 9-8-1994 petitioner gave an intimation to Kada Police Station that the prosecutrix had sustained injuries by horn of the bullock, enclosing medical certificate with this statement. On the basis of this intimation, an entry was taken on 10-8-1994 and an enquiry was entrusted to one of the Officers of the Police Station. By that time, this news spread amongst the villagers. Therefore, Police Patil and some villagers brought the prosecutrix and her parents to Kada Police Station on llth August, 1994. At that time, Subabai, mother of the prosecutrix, lodged a report of the incident with police. On that same day, her supplementary statement was recorded. In the supplementary statement, Subabai disclosed the conduct of the petitioner and made it clear that because they had given an undertaking in writing regarding the cause of injury to the petitioner, they were reluctant to lodge report of the incident. However, in view of the reaction of the villagers, she has disclosed the true facts and has lodged the report.

(3.) On the basis of this complaint, offence came to be registered. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. The petitioner came to be charged with an offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing evidence of the commission of offence by balu, to disappear with an intention of screening the offender.