ASHOK SURAJLAL UIKE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000251-000251 / 2006
Diary number: 15079 / 2005
Advocates: S. RAJAPPA Vs
ASHA GOPALAN NAIR
Crl.A. 251 of 2006 REPORTABLE 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2006
ASHOK SURAJLAL ULKE ...... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The facts of this case are as under:
1.1 The prosecutrix, P.W. 1, was studying in the
Zila Parishad School at Mohali, District Gadchiroli.
On the day of the incident, the accused met her and
enquired as to how she had performed in the Mathematics
paper in the examination. P.W. 1 replied that she had
not done too well on which the accused advised her to
bring the question paper to his house. Tukaram, P.W.
2, P.W.1's father told her to go along with her younger
brother Kapil, P.W. 3. The two, accordingly, went to
the house of the accused which was near the school.
They found that the accused was sitting outside his
house and he directed them to go towards the school and
told Kapil, to go out and bring some snacks from the
shop of Naitam. Kapil, accordingly, left for the shop
whereafter the accused held the hand of the prosecutrix
Crl.A. 251 of 2006 REPORTABLE 2
and pushed her towards the verandah of the school and
raped her. The shouts of alarm raised by the
prosecutrix could not heard by any one on account of
the operating loud speakers all around as it was the
day of the Sharda Devi festival. The prosecutrix
thereafter returned home and disclosed what had
happened to her parents. A report was, accordingly,
lodged at the police station on the 11th of October,
1997. On the completion of investigation, the accused
was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376
of the Indian Penal code.
1.2 The trial court relying on the evidence of P.W.
1, as supported by the circumstantial evidence of P.W.
2 and P.W. 3 and noticing that the medical evidence was
uncertain as the Doctor had opined that it was not
possible to give any opinion as to the rape,
nevertheless held that a case of rape had been made
out. A sentence of 7 years was, accordingly, imposed
on the appellant. An appeal taken to the High Court
was also dismissed. It is in this situation that the
matter is before us after the grant of special leave.
2. Mr. Lambat, the learned counsel for the
appellant, has raised several arguments before us
during the course of the hearing. He has first
pointed out that the First Information Report had been
Crl.A. 251 of 2006 REPORTABLE 3
lodged belatedly as the offence had taken place on the
8th October, 1997 and the FIR had been lodged three days
thereafter and that in any case the doctor's evidence
did not support the commission of rape and at the worst
(for the appellant) the matter fell under Section 354
of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra
has, however, pointed out that there was no reason
whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2
and P.W. 3 and in fact no suggestion had come from the
defence as to why they would give a false story. It
has also been pleaded that in the light of the
completely acceptable evidence of P.W. 1 even if the
doctor's evidence with regard to the commission of rape
was slightly uncertain it would not in any manner
detract from the prosecution story.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned
counsel. We are of the opinion that in a case of rape
the fact that the FIR had been lodged after a little
delay is of very little significance. There can be no
doubt that an allegation of rape, and that too of a
young child 15 years of age, is a matter of shame for
the entire family and in many such cases the parents or
even the prosecutrix are reluctant to go to the police
to lodge a report and it is only when a situation
Crl.A. 251 of 2006 REPORTABLE 4
particularly unpleasant arises for the prosecutrix that
an FIR is lodged. We also see from the evidence that
P.W. 2 had first gone to the Head Master of the school
(in which the accused was a teacher) and he had advised
him to wait for a few days to see if some thing could
be done in the matter and it was only after having
failed to get any reply from the Head Master that an
FIR was lodged. This also explains the fact that the
doctor had found nothing to suggest that rape had been
committed and was not in a position to give any
definite opinion on that account as the had incident
happened on the 8th October, 1997 and the medical
examination had been conducted on the 11th October,
1997, that is after three days. The doctor
nevertheless found that there was a minor injury on the
finger which was about four days old and that the hymen
was also missing.
5. In the light of the very categoric statements of
P.W. 1 as corraborated by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and in the
light of the fact that no cause for false implication
has been pointed out by the accused, we find no merit
in the appeal. Dismissed. Accused is on bail. His
bail bonds are cancelled. He should be taken into
custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the
sentence.
Crl.A. 251 of 2006 REPORTABLE 5
...... ..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2011.