RAJU PANDURANG MAHALE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 11-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJU PANDURANG MAHALE 
v. 
A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 11,2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND A,RIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 342134 and 354134-Wrongful confinement and assault or 
criminal force on -woman with intent to outrage her modesty-Prosecutrix C 
taken to house of one of the accused on false pretext by appellant in the night 
of occurrence-Appellant and another accused assaulted prosecutrix and made 
her to consume liquor-Prosecutrixforcibly disrobed and thereafter raped by 
one of the accused in the presence of appellant-She was able to come out of 
the confinement on the next day-Held, the factual scenario clearly establishes 
coi11missi0n by the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 342 D 
. and 354-Further, Section 34 has rightly been pressed into service. 
Section 34-Applicability of-Discussed. 
Words and phrases: 
E 
Woman's modesty-Meaning oj:--Explained. 
On the night of occurrence.at about 9.30 pm, appellant went to house 
of prosecutrix and on pretext that A-4 had gone for night duty, persisted 
her to stay at A-4's house with his wife as she was alone at home. 
Prosecutrix was reluctant but relented as appellant had earlier taken her F. · 
daughter and lift. her at the house of A-4. On reaching A-4's house, 
prosecutrix did not find A-4's wife. Instead A'-4 was present in his house 
along with his friend A-2. A-2 went outside the house and closed the door 
from outside forcing prosecutrix to remain in house with A-4 and 
appellant. Appellant had brought liquor which was consumed by him.and G 
A-4. Thereafter, both of them assaulted prosecutrix and forced her to 
consume liquor. Soon she experienced giddiness and lost her balance. She 
was, thereafter, raped by A-4. When she regained consciousness, she found 
A-4 was lying on her person and A-3 was in the room whom she alleged 
had .taken her nude photographs. In the morning, prosecutrix was ~sked 
. 
287 
. 
H 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004) 2 S.C.R. 
A to go home after being threatened not to disclose the i.ncident to anybody. 
She went to her sister's house, narrated the incident to her and thereafter 
they lodged a report with the police. Investigation was undertaken and 
chargesheet filed~ Appellant along with other 3 accused was convicted for 
offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. Additionally appellant, 
B A-2 and A-4 were found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 342 
read With section 34 IPC. Appellant, A-3 and A-4 were also convicted for 
offences punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC. In appeal, 
High Court set aside the conviction and sentences of appellant and A-3 
for offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (g). However, conviction and 
sentence of the appellant along with other accused for offences punishable 
C under Section 342/34 and Section 354/34 were maintained. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
D 
On behalf of appellant, it was contended that the role attributed to 
appellant did not in any manner establish existence of ingredients 
necessary to constitute offence punishable under Sections 342 and 3S4 IPC. 
·Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The factual scenario clearly establishes commission by the 
appellant of the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC. Section 342 
provides the punishment for wrongful confinement. It is established by 
E the evidence on record that the victim was taken to A-4's place by the 
appellant in the night of date of occurrence and she was able to come out 
of the confinement on the next day. The evidence ~n record clearly 
establishes that the appellant brought the victim to the house of A-4 on 
false pretext and ma.de it compulsory for her to go by earlier taking away 
F 
G 
her daughter to the house of A-4. She was confined with A-4 and the 
appellant, when rooms was locked from outside by A-2. It was appellant 
who brought the liquor which the victim was made to drink. She was 
forcibly disrobed by A-4 in the presence of the appellant. Thereafter A-4 
raped her and A-2 took her nude photographs while .she was being sexually 
ravished by A-4. (293-C-D-E, F] 
Shyam Lal Sharma and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 
(1972) SC 886, referred to. 
2.1. The provision in Section 354 makes penal the assault or use·of 
criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty. The essential 
H ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are : a) That the assault must 
... 
RAJU PANDURANG MAHA LE 1•. STATE OF

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.