Home > False Rape > Wife who got daughter to file false rape charge against dad earns high court wrath

Wife who got daughter to file false rape charge against dad earns high court wrath

Bombay high court’s Aurangabad bench chided a woman for getting her 12-year-old daughter to file false rape charges against her estranged husband. “It is a shocking event that a teenager was used as a lever against her father. The teenager had put her esteem at stake, but it was instrumentality of her mother which, indeed, proved fatal for smooth family life,” Justice KU Chandiwal observed.

“Memories of sexual assault are difficult to control and they disrupt daily life of victim,” the court observed before acquitting the father who was languishing in Aurangabad central jail since 2010. The Aurangabad-based teenager had a lodged a complaint on January 20, 2010, that her driver father, 32, had raped her two months earlier and made another attempt a day earlier. Offences under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC were registered against the man.

After medical examinations, the father was convicted by the sessions court on February 12 last year. He challenged this verdict in the high court pleading there was matrimonial discord and disharmony between him and his wife and the daughter was being used as a stooge. He further claimed that his wife had instigated the daughter to accompany her to police station and lodge a false FIR.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.406 OF 2012

 

Shaikh Sheru s/o. Shaikh  Turab,
age 32 years, occ.Driver,
R/o.Shahnurwadi, Aurangabad
at present r/o. Central Jail,
Harsool, Aurangabad ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
………
Mr.S.P.Tilve, advocate for appellant.
Mrs.R.K.Ladda, APP for respondent – State.
………
CORAM    : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON  : MARCH 20, 2013
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 02, 2013
JUDGMENT :
Appeal   was   admitted   on   27th  June,   2012.
Appellant   is   in   jail   from   20th  January,   2010, consequently, preference is given.
FACTS :­
2] The appellant has, allegedly, two months prior to the FIR dated 20th  January, 2010 (Crime No.I­27 of   2010),   has   committed   rape   on   his   12   years’ daughter   (prosecutrix).       He   again   desired   such sex   on   19th  January,   2010,   which   was rebuked   and disliked   by   the   prosecutrix.     She   ran   away   and informed   her   mother,   giving   rise   to   FIR   for offence under Sections 376, 506 and also 376 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code.
3] After   FIR,   spot   panchnama   was   drawn.     The prosecutrix   and   the   accused   –   appellant   were medically   examined   including   radiology   test   to determine   her   age.     The   seized   samples   were forwarded   to   regional   forensic   lab   and   since   it revealed   that   the   accused   has   committed   offence, he   was   charge   sheeted   before   learned   Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad on 14th  June, 2010 and it was committed to the Court of Sessions at Aurangabad for trial.   Charge below Exhibit 3 was explained to the accused – appellant.   He did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.  His defence was, there was matrimonial discord and disharmony between him and his wife; the daughter is stooge of his wife.   His wife instigated the prosecutrix to   accompany   her   to   police   station   and   lodged   a false FIR.
4] Six witnesses were put in by the prosecution. PW 1 is prosecutrix.   PW 2 – Sk. Anwar Sk. Sheru was the panch for panchnama Exhibit 22.   PW 3 is Shamim Begam Shaikh Ayub, mother­in­law of accused and mother of Ruksanabi.  Prosecutrix is her grand daughter.       PW   4   –   Shriniwas   Hanumant   Khandekar had   carried   investigation   in   the   matter,   had arrested the accused – appellant, had sent seized articles to the office of Chemical Analyser under forwarding letter Exhibit 31.   PW 5 is Dr.Vikram
Samadhan   Lokhande.     He   had   examined   the prosecutrix   and   tendered   his   report   Exhibit   35 dated 21st January, 2010.   He had collected venous blood, pubic hair, nails and vaginal smear of the prosecutrix   and   had   also   addressed   letter   to   the
Chemical Analyser for analysing samples.   PW 6 is Dr.Pankaj   Ramrao   Ahire,   Radiologist,   who   had examined the prosecutrix on 22nd  January, 2010 and according   to   him,   her   radiological   age   was   14 years (Exhibit 43).

5] On   analytical   assessment   of   evidence, following points appear not in dispute :
a) The   prosecutrix   is   daughter   of   appellant   and Ruksanabi, aged 12­-14 years.
b) PW 3 Shamim Begum is real mother of Ruksanabi and grand mother of the prosecutrix.
c) There   was   discord   between   the   couple   ensuing in   heated   arguments   on   the   point   of   Ruksanabi engaged as scrap picker or the appellant consuming liquor.
d) The   couple   is   also   blessed   with   two   sons, Salman and Arbaz, who were present in the hut on the day of incident.
e) The hut / room is small, hardly able to occupy 4­5 persons, rented.
f) Medical Officer did not notice any injuries on private part of the victim or any sense or sign of ravishing her sexually.
g) PW   3   Shamim   Begum   accepted   in   the   evidence that false FIR was lodged against the appellant at the instance of her daughter.

6] It   is   a   shocking   event,   that   a   teen,   the prosecutrix, has been used as a lever against her father.     The   defence   witness   Sk.   Rafique   (DW   1) and   Shaikh   Afsar   (DW   2)   are   acquainted   to   the couple as Sk. Rafique was landlord of Shamim begum ,and house of Ruksanabi was at some distance from his   house.     He   explained   about   regular   quarrels between   the   accused   and   Ruksanabi   on   account   of later   collecting   scrap.     After   such   quarrels, Ruksanabi used to come to her mother Shamimbi and extend   threats   of   criminal   prosecution   to   the appellant.       DW   2   Shaikh   Afsar   is   cousin   of Ruksanabi.     He   used   to   reside   in   nearby   area   in the   house   of   Sk.   Rafique.     DW   2     Shaikh   Afsar referred to discord between the couple.  Ruksanabi extended   threats   of   criminal   prosecution. Ruksanabi   even   conveyed   him   of   filing   a   criminal case of accusation of rape on prosecutrix against her   husband.     DW   2   Shaikh   Afsar   says,   Ruksanabi has filed false criminal case against the accused.

7] It is settled legal position that “if evidence of   prosecutrix   inspires   confidence,   it   must   be relied   upon   without   seeking   corroboration   of   her statement   in   material   particulars.     If   for   some reasons   the   Court   finds   it   difficult   to   place
implicit   reliance   on   her   testimony,   it   may   look for   evidence   which   may   lend   assurance   to   her testimony”.

8] Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   has   observed  in   the matter   of  State   of   Punjab   Vs.   Gurmeet   Singh   and others,   1996(2)   SCC   384,   “The   courts   must,   while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self­respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement   against   her   honour   such   as   is   involved in   the  commission   of   rape   on   her.   In   cases involving   sexual  molestation,   supposed considerations   which   have   no   material   effect   on the   veracity   of   the   prosecution   case   or   even  discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should   not,   unless   the   discrepancies   are   such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.”

9] In cross­examination, the prosecutrix candidly accepts, at the time of sexual abuse in the hut, her   two   younger   brothers   were   sleeping,   however, inspite of her yelling, they did not awake.   The room   is   in   cluster,   consequently,   commotion     was
audible, but nobody turned forward.   There is no explanation from the prosecution as to why Salman and Arbaz, the two children in the room present at the   time   of   alleged   rape,   are   not   examined.     If they were in slumber, still there was no harm for the   prosecution   to   put   in   before   the   Court.     If the prosecutrix, at her tender age of 12­-14 years, not   used   to   sex,is sexually   abused   by   grown   up person   like   her   father   (appellant),   the unfortunate   implications   are,   to   suffer   profuse bleeding   to   her   private   part   or   to   witness injuries   nearby   area   including,   swelling   and rupture.     Nothing   of   this   sort   has   taken   place. The   prosecutrix   is   unable   to   explain,   what   made  her not to retort against her father to her mother who, knowingly, was on cross terms.     Her keeping silence for two months, after so called rape, is suggestive of falsehood, rather than screening the evidence.     She   did   not   demonstrate   her   annoyance to her peers or grandmother (PW 3).   No plausible answers   are   forthcoming.     It   may   be   that   the prosecutrix   was   experiencing   symptoms   of   acute trauma   soon   after   ravishing,   but   such   trauma cannot be expected to extend for over two months. The   couple   locked   horns   and   had   tantrums.     The intrigue   memories   of   sexual   assault   are   normally difficult to control which disrupts daily life of victim. Nightmare   flashbacks   after   such   event, are   not   indicated.   Her   evidence   coupled   with evidence of PW 3 and defence witnesses appears to be a catalogue of  events in chronological form to a hypothesis of false implication of appellant for no event   of   sexual   abuse. The   prosecutrix   had put   her   esteem   at   stakes,   but   it   was instrumentality   of   her   mother   which,   indeed, proved   fetal   for   the   smooth  family   life.        The evidence   of   prosecutrix   does   not   inspire confidence   to   bank   upon.       The   medical   evidence does   not   support   that   she   had   suffered   sexual abuse or that she was a sex victim, even delayed examination by two months, showed she was not used to sex.

10] The   learned   Addl.   Sessions   Judge   recorded affirmative   findings   for   sexual   abuse,   inviting infraction of Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code,   however,   he   did   not   believe   later   event dated   19th  January,   2010   of   appellant   insisting
prosecutrix   for   sex   for   second   time   to   invite Section 376 read with 511 of Indian Penal Code or attempt   to   commit   rape   inviting   Section   376   read with 511 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence, as a whole,   does   not   demonstrate   that   the   victim   was sexually abused, least by her father / appellant.

11] Criminal Appeal allowed.   Conviction recorded in Sessions Case No.169 of 2010 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge­3, Aurangabad, dated 29th  February, 2012,   is   set   aside.     Accused   /   appellant   be released   forthwith,   if   not   required   in   any   other case.
[K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.]
kbp

  1. vinayak
    May 3, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    just chided ?? nothing more than just chided ?

    Pardon my french …but WTF ???

    just chide and let the woman go away ??? NO punishments ?

    not even an arrest ???

  2. Rashid Ali
    May 11, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    why not section 182 used ?

    • Amol Kurhe
      May 11, 2013 at 2:00 pm

      this is India…..Court will not initiate actions even after proving that Women/Wife filed false cases ans also have malign the Court by giving False Evidences in Open Court, clearly a contempt. Courts considers Women as Abla Nari…….
      Now Section 182 or other can be used but it has to be done by the other contesting party…here it is Husband/MAN, which will not initiate as he was harassed to prove his innocence…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: