REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL Nos. 262-263 OF 2005      

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus

RAVIKANT SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS. ...   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

V.S.SIRPURKAR,J.

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated  

10.9.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal  

Appeal Nos. 658 and 644 of 2000 whereby the conviction and  

sentence  awarded  by  the  trial  court  were  set-aside  and  

appeals  of  the  appellants  were  allowed  and  they  were  

acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Respondent  

Nos.  1  to  5  were  convicted  by  the  trial  court  for  the  

offences punishable under Sections 148, 452 r/w 149, 366 r/w  

149, 342 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 506 (2) r/w 149, IPC.  

Respondent No. 1/accused No. 1  Ravikant Shankarappa Patil  

was also convicted for the offences punishable under Section  

386 r/w Section 511, 376 IPC and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

2. Briefly  stated,  the  prosecution  case  is  that  

prosecutrix  Fatima Sabin Nazir Ahmad Shaikh was  studying  

in III year Computer engineering at Walchand Institute of

Technology at Solapur  and  had brilliant  education record.  

Her father was a professor.  He left India for Libya in 1981  

but  returned  to  India  in  1991  and  started  his  hotel  

business. Her brother was also getting education at Pune.  

Accused No. 1 contested  election from Solapur constituency  

and  was  elected  Member  of  Parliament.  Due  to  political  

activities, accused No. 1 came in close contact with the  

family  members  of  the  prosecutrix  and  also  helped  her  

family  initially for the construction of their house.

3. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 developed  

fatal  attraction  for  the  prosecutrix.  After  hearing  the  

proposal  from  accused  No.1  for  marriage  with  the  

prosecutirx, her  father got annoyed with accused No.1 and  

asked him not to come to his house.  It is alleged that  

with his muscle and money power, accused No. 1  started  

threatening the  family members  of the  prosecutrix.   On  

5.5.2009, accused No. 1, under threat, took the prosecutrix  

and her  whole family to Bombay for getting married with  

prosecutrix and for that purpose he also converted himself  

to Islam.  Thereafter, Nikaah was performed on 6.5.1999 at  

Bombay in the presence of Kazi. In this nikaah, accused no.  

1 was helped by other accused persons who were his henchmen.  

Even after the nikaah, accused No. 1 is alleged to have  

moved  along  with  prosecutrix  at  various  places  including  

Khandala,  Mysore  and  Hyderabad  where  according  to  the

prosecutrix, under threat,she was raped by  accused No. 1  

from  9.5.1999  to  17.5.1999.  In  short, the  case  of the  

prosecution appears to be that it was only with the muscle  

and  money  power  that  the  accused  No.  1  forced  the  

prosecutrix for  nikaah and ravished her. The prosecutrix  

lodged an FIR against the accused persons on 5.6.1999.  

4. In  support  of  its  case,  the  prosecution,  in  all,  

examined  12  witnesses  including  prosecutrix  PW  2-  Fatima  

Sabin Nazir Ahmad Shaikh, Kazi PW-3 Hajij Yusuf Shaikh and  

her mother PW8- Rashida Begum Nazir Ahmed Shaikh.

5. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

parties and gone through the record.

6. We were taken through the evidence of PW1, PW3 and  

PW8 by Mr. U.B.Dube, learned counsel appearing for the State  

of  Maharashtra  who  painstakingly  developed  the  whole  

argument to the effect that the family of the prosecutrix  

was a middle class family.  With the help of muscle and  

money power, accused No. 1 used to threaten  the prosecutrix  

and her family members.  The whole family remained under the  

threat of the accused No. 1 and the nikaah was performed  

forcibly though the prosecutrix had not consented for it.  

Learned counsel, therefore, argued that it is  established  

law that when the prosecutrix herself alleges the rape and

other ill treatments by  accused No. 1, her evidence was  

sufficient  enough  to  convict  the  accused  persons  and  

rightly  believed  to  be  true  by  the  trial  court   and,  

therefore,  the  High  Court  should  not  have  upset  the  

conviction awarded by the trial court.  

7.      Mr. Dube  submitted that in committing the crime,  

accused No. 1 was helped by all the  other accused persons  

who were his henchmen.  He  also stated that  accused No. 1  

was an influential political leader having been once elected  

as  a  Member  of  Parliament  and  once  as  a  Member  of  

Legislative Assembly of Karnataka.  He, therefore, pointed  

out that accused No. 1 along with his henchmen overawed the  

family  of  the  prosecutrix  and  also  obtained    forceful  

consent from the prosecutrix for their nikaah.  He, further  

argues that there was no valid nikaah and that the act of  

the accused No. 1 in ravishing the prosecutirx  would amount  

to rape under Section 376 IPC.  He also argued that  the  

prosecutrix was forcibly taken away from the custody of her  

parents.   The  conviction  and  sentence  ordered  by  the  

Sessions court for the various offences including criminal  

intimidation and causing injuries were well justified.

8. Mr.  Sushil  Karanjkar,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent  pointed  out  that  the  High  Court  has  very

painstakingly  gone through the whole list of events from  

November, 1998 right up to 5.6.1999, the day when the first  

information  report  was  lodged  by  the  prosecutrix.   Mr.  

Karanjkar, pointed out that even though it was alleged that  

because of his desire to marry with the prosecutrix as he  

was not happy with his wife, accused No. 1 overawed the  

family  with  the  revolver,  but  the  incident  was  never  

reported to the police.  Mr. Karanjkar further  pointed out

that even though in the Ramzaan Eid  festival in January,  

1999,  when  the  prosecutrix  and  her  family  members  had  

shifted to new house at Jule, Solapur,  accused No. 1 came  

there and  threatened them  to pay  Rs. 12,00,000/-,   this  

matter was also not reported to the police.  Learned counsel  

further argues  that in the last week of April, 1999 when  

accused No. 1 again came to the residence of the prosecutrix  

and started threatening  and insisted for  payment of Rs.  

8,00,000/- and also insisted the prosecutrix to marry him,  

no report to that effect was lodged.  Likewise, the learned  

counsel pointed out the that the event of 5.5.1999 was not  

reported to the police  when the prosecutrix and her family  

was made to travel to Bombay in a car belonging to accused  

No. 1 for the purpose of nikaah.  Learned counsel points out  

that for the purpose of  nikaah, accused No. 1 converted

himself to Islaam and there was a kazi who got the nikaah  

performed  between  accused  No.  1  and  the  prosecutrix.  

Thereafter,  learned  counsel  relied  on  all  the  documents  

including the affidavit filed by the accused No. 1 to the  

effect that he had converted himself into Islaam as also the  

oral evidence of the Kazi - PW3.  Therefore, there was no  

question  of  any  undue  influence  or  coercion  having  been  

exercised by or at the instance of accused No. 1.  

9.  Mr. Karanjkar  also points out that for the purpose  

of this nikaah, the rest of family members including the  

father and mother of the prosecutrix travelled by  train and

accompanied  accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix to the house  

of  Shakil  Noorani  in  Bombay  where  nikaah  was  performed.  

Learned  counsel  further  points  out  that  there  was  no  

question of this marriage having been performed under the  

undue influence, coercion, threat or fraud.  Learned counsel  

points out that after the marriage, accused No. 1 and the  

prosecutrix went to a resort in Khandala and thereafter,  

they  also  went  to  Hyderabad,  Mysore  etc.  including  the  

Vrindavan gardens where  accused No. 1 is alleged to have  

taken the photographs of the  prosecutrix.   

10. Mr. Karanjkar  further points out that the High Court  

has threadbare   appreciated the evidence of PW2, her mother

PW8,  Kazi- PW 3 and other prosecution witnesses.  There is  

nothing on record to suggest that accused No. 1, at any  

point of time, coerced or threatened the prosecutrix  and  

her family members. Mr. Karanjkar wonders that the educated  

family and well to do  parents do not find time to report  

the serious matter concerning their daughter to the police.  

He further supports the finding of the High Court to the  

effect  that  though   accused  No.  1   had  ravished  the  

prosecutrix in her own house in a bed room when the other  

family members were also present, but  none of them came  

forward to the rescue of the prosecutrix despite her cries  

for help and lodged any report.  Learned counsel points out  

a very substantial discrepancy in the prosecution case  that  

the father and brother of the prosecutrix,who were professor

and  student,  have  not  been  examined  as  prosecution  

witnesses. Learned counsel further points out that the High  

Court has taken a reasonable  and plausible view of the  

evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 8 and 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  

creates a doubt on the prosecution story.

11. Mr. Dube, learned counsel appearing for the State was  

not in a position to justify the evidence of Kazi PW 3,

particularly, that he did not see happiness on the face of  

the bride when he performed the nikaah.  

12. Mr. Karanjkar argued that the High Court has rightly  

concluded that   from the solitary statement of PW3 that he  

did not see happiness on the face of bride, no inference can  

be drawn that it was a forced nikaah.  It is also stated  

that the father and the brother of the prosecutrix acted as  

vakils of the prosecutrix and also gave consent  for the  

marriage and in consideration,  Mehar of Rs. 25,0000/- was  

given.  There is also a valid nikaahnama on record.

13. We  have  gone  through  the  impugned  judgment  very  

carefully. We  find that the impugned judgment cannot be  

faulted  with.  The  findings  given  by  the  High  Court  are  

perfectly justifiable.   The  High Court  has not  erred in  

coming to the conclusion that the  whole prosecution story  

was  a myth.  Undoubtedly, the whole matter is unfortunate.  

However,  this  is  an  appeal against  the acquittal.  The

burden was on the prosecution  to prove and justify its  

contention that the findings of the High Court were perverse  

and were not justifiable and in this case, the High Court  

has miserably failed to do justice and  the findings and  

inferences drawn by it are not possible view or could not  

not have been drawn in law.  The prosecution has failed to

convince us.

14. Once the appeal fails against the main accused, there  

remains nothing against the other accused.  Mr. Dube, did  

not seriously challenge their acquittal.  The evidence also  

does not suggest any criminal activity on their part.  The  

appeal against their acquittal has to necessarily fail.

15. This  being  the  position,  we  are  not  inclined  to  

interfere  with  the  well-considered  judgment  of  the  High  

Court.  The impugned judgment of the High Court, acquitting  

the  accused  persons,  is  confirmed.   The  appeals  are,  

accordingly, dismissed.   

              ...................J.                                  (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

             ....................J.                          ( T.S.THAKUR)

New Delhi, May 05, 2011