LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RAVIKANT SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 5 S.C.R. 1180 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVIKANT SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 262-263 of 2005) MAY 5, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] PENAL CODE 1860: c ss.376,386 read with ss.148,, 4521149, 3661149, 3421149, 3231149, 506 (2)1149 /PC and S. 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act- Allegation against main accused that he threatened the prosecutrix and her family members and married the prosecutrix and raped her - Other accused prosecuted for 0 various other offences -Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court holding that the father and the brother of prosecutrix acted as vakils of the prosecutrix and gave consent for the marriage and in consideration Mehar was given and there was a/so a valid Nikahnama - Held: The judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with and the E findings given by it are perfectly justified - Judgment of High Court acquitting the accused persons is confirmed -Appeal against acquittal. F Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136 - Appeal against acquittal - Held: Burden is on the prosecution to prove and justify its case that findings of High Court in acquitting the accused were perverse and were not justifiable and that the High Court miserably failed G to do justice and inferences drawn by if are not possible or could not have been drawn in law - In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden - Penal Code, 1860- ss. 376 and 386 read with ss. 148, 4521149, 3771149, 2421149, 3231149, 506 (2)1149 IPC-Arms Act, 1951- s.25(1) H (a) - Appeal. 1180 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVIKANT 1181 SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS. Respondent No.1 was prosecuted for committing A offences punishable u/s. 376 and 386 IPC and s. 25(1 )(a) of the Arms Act. He was also prosecuted with the other accused-respondents for committing offences punishable u/ss. 148, 452/149, 366/149, 342/149, 323/149, 506 (2)/149 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that the B prosecutrix was a student of 3rd year Computer Engineering. Her father was a professor and after returning to India, he started Hotel business, and her brother was studying in a different city; that accused- respondent No.1 (A-1), who was an M.P., came in close c contact with the family members of the prosecutrix and helped them initially in construction of their house; that he wanted to marry with the prosecutrix, but her father opposed it: that on 5.5.1999, A-1, under threat, took the prosecutrix and her whole family to Mumbai for getting 0 married with the prosecutrix, and for this purpose, he converted himself into Islam; that Nikah was performed on 6.5.1999 at Mumbai in presence of Kazi (PW-3) with the help of accused-respondents No. 2 to 5; that after Nikah, A-1 took the prosecutrix to various places and under threat raped her from 9.5.1999 to 17 .5.1999. The E prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 5.6.1999. The trial court convicted the accused persons of the offences charged. But on appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted all the accused. In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was contended for the accused- respondents that the High Court considered the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother (PW-8) and the Kazi (PW-3) and there was nothing F on record to suggest that A-1 at any point of time G coerced or threatened the prosecutrix or her family members who were educated and well to do parents; that the High Court went painstakingly through the whole list of events from November, 1998 up to 5.6.1999, the day H 1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A when the FIR was lodged, and took a reasonable and plausible view of the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother and the Kazi, and the silence on the part of the material witnesses and failure to explain as to why they did not report the matter to the police of all these events, B created a doubt on the prosecution story, particularly, when the father and the brother of the prosecutrix were not examined as prosecution witnesses and they rather acted as vakils and gave consent for the marriage, and in consideration Mehar was given and the valid c Nikahnama was on record. Dismissing the appeals, the court HELD: The impugned judgment cannot be faulted with. The findings given by the High Court are perfectly D justifiable. The High Court has not erred in coming to the conclusion that the whole prosecution story was a myth. This is an appeal again
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.