ANANT SHIVRAM GURAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants - original accused Nos. 3 and 4 have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, under (1) Section 366 read with Section 34, (2) Section 376, and ( 3 ) Section 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years 5 years and 5 years respectively on those counts. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The victim Suman (P.W.1 ) was working as a domestic servant with one Madansingh Manmohansingh who used to reside at Union Park, Chembur, Bombay. Her father, Shankar, (P.W. 5 ) was, at the relevant time, staying at Parel where he was working. It is the case of the prosecution that Suman was unmarried but she had delivered a child six moats prior to the date of the incident. It is also the case of the prosecution that she became pregnant on account of forcible intercourse by her father. It may be mentioned that this past history has a little relevance and impact on the incident itself.

(3.) On the day of the incident, viz. 12th June 1974 at 12.00 noon, her father went to Madansingh's place and sought and obtained permission of the mistress of the house to take Suman out for the day on the ground that there was a Satya Narayan Pooja at Parel and that he wanted Suman to attend that function. It is the case of the prosecution that Suman and her father saw a picture at Basant Theatre, Chembur at about 3.00 p. m. and in the evening they did some shopping in Sindhi Colony at Chembur. Thereafter they took dinner in a restaurant at Chembur. At about 9.00 P. m. they entered Gold Club Compound at Chembur. A watchman there accosted them and told them that it was unsafe to enter the Club compound at that time as undesirable charcters were roaming in the compoud. Shankar told him that he knew the road and there was a short cut through the compound and took Suman with him inside the compound. As Shankar wanted: to relieve, he took out his trousers for that purpose. Soon thereafter, the watchman again came and warned him that it was not the place where he should ease himself. Another watchman also came, there. While they were talking, the original 5 accused came there. Two of them stood in front Of Suman and three stood in" front of the two watchmen and Shankar. Shankar and the watchmen took fright and ran away in the direction of the gate. The accused then closed the mouth of Suman by hands and dragged her to some distance and three of them committed rape on Suman without her consent and against her will in spite of the fact that accused No. 1 had requested the other accused to let go Suman. It is the case of the prosecution that Shankr went out and saw a motor wagan which was driven by an Army Officer and requested him to take him in the compound to find out Suman. The Army Officer did so, but they could not find Suman in the compound. Shankar than went to the Police Station and narrated the story to a Police Constable who accompanied Shankar hi a taxi and went to the club compound and took a round in the compound but Suman was not found. When they returned to the Police Station, Suman was already there with Neena Singh, the daughter of her employer. Suman's statemeut was recorded and then she was sent to the hospital for examination. Her clothes, viz. petti-coat, saree and the blouse were attached. The petti-coat and the saree were stated to have been stained with blood. Unfortunately, these articles were lost from the Police Station. The panchnama of the scene of. offence was effence was effected and a pair of chappals which Suman stated, to have been dropped by her near the scene of offence was seized. The chappals were also lost from the Police Station. The medical evidence of Suman did not reveal any injury either on her private part or on her person. The accused were traced and arrested between 22nd 25 th June 1974. They were sent for medical examination on 26 th June 1974 and on their return from the hospital they were put up for identification and accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were identified by Suman .as persons who had taken part in the offence. The two watchmen also took part in the identification. One of the watchmen identified accused No. 1 but as the watchmen had not been examined in this Care identification is not of any assistance to the prosecution. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was put up against the accused including Shankar -the father of Suman.