Keshav vs The State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 604 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No………… of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11566 of 2024)

KESHAV S/O LAXMAN RUPNAR & ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. …RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The accused, appellants No. 1 and 2 were alleged to

have committed rape on PWs 2 and 3. The appellants

were arrayed along with two others, before the Trial

Court, all of whom stood convicted; the appellants for

abduction and rape while the other two were

convicted for abduction alone. Two set of appeals

were filed, one by the appellants herein and another Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.04.30 16:53:03 IST Reason: Page 1 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 by A3 & A4, the latter of which was allowed acquitting

A3 and A4.

3. We heard Mr. Sharangauda Patil, learned

Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Aaditya

Aniruddha Pande, learned Counsel for the

respondent - State.

4. The prosecution story was that PWs 2 and 3,

wives of siblings, had a quarrel with their

mother-in-law and left their matrimonial home,

on the pretext of answering the call of nature.

The two year old son of PW3 was also taken with

them. PWs 2 and 3 with an intention to go to

Kurla, boarded a tempo in which accused No.1 to

4 were travelling. The accused promised to take

them to Kurla without charging any fare and

when they reached Bodka, PW4 who was also in

the tempo alighted and PWs2 and 3 continued in

the vehicle. The accused, however, refused to

stop the vehicle at Kurla and went forward,

ignoring the protests made by PWs 2 & 3. PWs 2

Page 2 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 and 3 raised a hue and cry when they were

threatened with a knife. They were taken to a

field and both PWs 2 and 3 were raped by A1

and A2, one after the other. PW2 deposed that

A3 and A4 aided A1 and A2, whereas PW3 said

that when the vehicle was stopped beyond Kurla

A3 and A4 left. This contradiction in testimony

led to the acquittal of A3 and A4.

5. The continued narration of PWs 2 and 3 was that

after raping them A1 and A2 dropped them at

Gangakhed from where they proceeded to

Parbhani where they stayed for about 15 days.

The victims left their matrimonial home on

04.06.2000 and later after PW2's father brought

them back to their village an FIR was registered

on 20.06.2000. The Trial Court convicted the

accused solely on the testimony of the victims,

which was found to be believable; affirmed as

mutually corroborated by the High Court. It is

the uninspiring testimony of PWs 2 and 3 and

Page 3 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 the unbelievable story set up, which is projected

to assail the order of conviction.

6. PW 1 was the father of PW 2 who was also the

first informant. PW1 specifically testified that on

the missing of the victims, along with the son of

one of them, a complaint was registered with

the police, which was marked as Exb.33. His

testimony was that it was for the first time that

the victims left their matrimonial home without

informing their husbands and on inquiry the

victims told that they were planning to go to

their parental home due to quarrel with their

mother-in-law. The mother-in-law or their

husbands were not examined before Court to

substantiate that they had left their marital

home.

7. PW2 and PW3, no doubt spoke in tandem about

their boarding the tempo on the promise of the

accused to drop them at Kurla, the accused

having not stopped the vehicle at Kurla,

Page 4 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 threatening them when they raised a hue and

cry, and later raping them at a deserted field. It

is very pertinent that the two-year old boy was

with the victims at the time when the crime was

alleged to have been committed, but there is

nothing stated about his whereabouts when the

two accused were simultaneously but separately

forcefully having sexual intercourse with the

victims.

8. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court placed

heavy reliance on the testimony of PW4 who

saw the victims along with the child travelling in

the tempo. Strangely, PW 4 did not identify

either of the accused as having travelled in the

tempo. PW3 has stated that they planned to go

to Kurla to stay with the sister of PW 2 in which

event in all probability, after the atrocity

committed on them, they would have gone to

the sister of PW 2. For arguments sake we would

take it that the shame caused, forced them to go

to Parbhani. It is the testimony of PW 2 in her Page 5 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 chief-examination that they hired a room at

Parbhani on rent basis and stayed there for 15

days. In cross-examination she also stated that

she had sold a 'natni' to obtain money. Neither

the lodge was identified or anybody examined to

prove their residence nor any investigation

conducted regarding the sale of 'natni'. More

interesting is the fact that in cross-examination

PW2 stated that in Parbhani they stayed with a

‘cousin-aunt’ to whom they have not disclosed

the incident of rape. The specific contention was

that they stayed for about 14 days with the

‘cousin-aunt’ and for one day with another lady

and then that lady took her to the residence of

her ‘cousin-aunt’ where they stayed for 14 days.

PW 3 in her cross-examination stated that at

Parbhani they stayed in the residence of an

unknown lady for four to five days and

thereafter with the relative of PW2. PW3 speaks

of having told the lady that they left their

matrimonial home due to the ill-treatment of Page 6 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 their husbands and in-laws. Not only were

contradictory versions given about their stay in

Parbhani, nobody was examined to substantiate

the stay at Parbhani for 15 days.

9. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh 1, held that

even without any corroboration, if the evidence

of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it can be

relied on and can also be the sole ground for

conviction. However, if it is difficult to place

implicit reliance on the testimony of the

prosecutrix, then the Court has to look for

evidence to lend assurance to her testimony

which would be short of corroboration required

in the case. The testimony of the prosecutrix

must be appreciated in the background of the

entire case, was the finding. Raju v. State of

M.P.2, while reiterating the above principle also

cautioned that while rape causes the greatest

distress and humiliation, a false allegation of

rape also can cause equal distress, humiliation 1 (1996) 2 SCC 384 2 (2008) 15 SCC 133 Page 7 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 and damage to the accused as well. The Court

should be equally careful in protecting the

accused from a false implication. While applying

the broad principle that an injured witness,

whose presence cannot be doubted, as she

would ordinarily not lie, still there is no

presumption or any basis for assuming that the

statement of such a witness is always correct or

without any embellishments.

10. Looking at the totality of the circumstances

and the entire story as narrated by the victims,

PW 2 and PW3, we find difficulty in accepting

their testimony to be one having sterling quality.

We cannot also say that the story as narrated by

the victims inspires confidence. Looking for

assurance, we find the entire narration to be

unbelievable and not substantiated on its finer

details. As we noticed, nobody is examined from

the matrimonial house to speak on the victims

having left their residence without informing

their in-laws or their husbands. PW 4, as we Page 8 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 noticed only speaks of having seen the victims

along with the child travelling in a tempo, but he

does not speak of the accused travelling along

with them. Neither did he identify the accused in

the dock nor was an attempt made by the

prosecution to carry out such an identification, in

Court. PWs 2 and 3 identified the accused and

there was also a test identification parade

carried out. However, their story of having been

taken past Kurla and the rape in the deserted

field does not inspire confidence. Likewise, the

subsequent stay in Parbhani, that too for 15

days, is full of inconsistencies and police also did

not carry out any investigation as to the place at

which the victims stayed along with the child of

two years.

11. Further we also looked at the evidence of

PW 9, the Doctor, who examined the victims,

who deposed that he saw no evidence of a

forceful sexual intercourse. We are conscious of

the fact that the medical examination was done Page 9 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 after 15 days of the alleged crime. But the

Doctor deposes that if there was forceful sexual

intercourse, that too repeated, as evident from

the testimony, there would be some injuries

which may not be detected after about one or

one and a half months. The medical

examination was within that period.

12. In the totality of the circumstances, we are

unable to place any reliance on the oral

testimony of PWs 2 and 3; though they spoke in

tandem about the crime. The story put up by the

prosecution as spoken of by PWs 2 and 3 are full

of holes and it raises a grave suspicion in our

minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt.

13. The Appeal stands allowed acquitting the

accused. The judgment of High Court dated

02.07.2024 and the Trial Court dated 02.07.2003

are hereby set aside. The accused if in custody

shall be released forthwith, if they are not

Page 10 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 wanted in any other case and if they are on bail,

their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 30, 2025.

Page 11 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 ITEM NO.1504 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11566/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-07-2024 in CRLA No. 509/2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad]

KESHAV & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) Date : 30-04-2025 This petition was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mr. Sharangouda Patil, Adv.

Mr. Anoop Raj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.

Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced

the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and His

Lordship.

Leave granted.

Page 12 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024 The operative portion of the Judgment reads as

follows :-

“13. The Appeal stands allowed

acquitting the accused. The

judgment of High Court dated

02.07.2024 and the Trial Court

dated 02.07.2003 are hereby set

aside. The accused if in custody

shall be released forthwith, if

they are not wanted in any other

case and if they are on bail,

their bail bonds shall stand

cancelled.

14. Pending interlocutory

application(s), if any, is/are

disposed of.”

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

Page 13 of 13 SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024