Ashok Surajlal Uike vs State Of Maharashtra

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.