w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sachin Tukaram Muneshwar & Others v/s The State of Maharashtra, through PSO P.S. Wadgaon Road, Dist.


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

Company & Directors' Information:- SACHIN AND COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101UP1996PLC019753

    Criminal Application (ABA) Nos. 218 of 2015, 257 of 2015 & 309 of 2015

    Decided On, 30 July 2015

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI

    For the Applicants: S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate. For the Respondent: M.J. Khan, A.P.P.



Judgment Text

1. These are the applications for grant of anticipatory bail filed by various applicants in relation to the offence registered under Sections 376 (2)(n) of the Indian penal Code read with other sections of the Indian penal Code. Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC being the main offence, the claim for grant of anticipatory bail is required to be examined particularly in the light of question of law that arises for consideration.

FACTS:

Criminal Application No. 309/2015

2. One Ku. P. aged about 21 years lodged report with Police Station Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur and stated therein that when she was taking education in D.Ed. College and residing with her close relative, she had a love affair with applicant-Sachin, who promised her from time to time that he would marry her and would not marry anybody else. In 2008, when she was studying in the 9th standard again, he had extended to her similar promises for marriage and with that promise committed rape on her and she allowed him to do so only because of promise of marriage. However, thereafter, when she was pressing him to marry her, he avoided her from time to time and finally stopped talking to her and as such she lodged report with Police Station Sindewahi on 17.06.2015 and an offence, as stated above, has been registered against the applicant.

Criminal Application No. 257/2015

3. Ku. S. aged about 20 years, lodged report with Police Station, Pandharkawda on 02.05.2015, that she had received a phone call on her mobile number from unknown person who told her that he loves her and thereafter when she had gone to Patanbori along with her neighbour and friend, a boy, aged about 23-24 years came near her and offered to marry her but she went away. On the second occasion, she received a call on her mobile phone from applicant-Syed Abubakar Syed Mir, the same boy who called her near road going to Tipeshwar forest. She went at 6.00 p.m. to meet him when she told her that he loves her and would marry her and, therefore, she became ready for marriage. They used to meet near the same road and thereafter on last visit he took her under nullah bridge and committed rape on her, thereafter, he refused to marry her. She lodged report accordingly with police Station Pandharkawda.

Criminal Application No. 218/2015

4. Ku. A. aged about 30 years lodged report with Police Station, Kasarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal on which offence under Section 376, 312 of the IPC was registered against the applicant. She stated in the FIR that she was working and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as Field Officer in the office of Sant Gadge Baba Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Dist. Yavatmal. There was a friendship between the present applicant and the complainant Ku. A. and in the year 2013 when she was residing as a tenant of one Shri Gupta at Amraipura, S.T. Stand Chowk, Yavatmal, the applicant had gone to meet her and told her that he wanted to marry her. She told him that in the year 2004 itself, she was already married with one Amar Dashrath, r/o Narkhed, Nagpur and, thereafter, there was a divorce between them and therefore she was residing alone. He told her that he wanted to marry her and upon that promise, committed rape on her on 23 occasions. In 2014, when she was at Darwah, the applicant came to her and gave her promise of marriage and committed rape on her. Thereafter, at Pusad when she was residing in a rented room, there again the applicant had committed rape on her. In the meantime, she conceived from the applicant and told him about it. She requested him to marry her but he did not. On the contrary, he gave her tablets for abortion. It is thus from him, she conceived and twice she aborted. In June-2014 when she was residing in the house of Shri Khandale at Wadgaon, both resided together and there again she conceived and asked him to marry but he did not marry. Thereafter, the applicant stopped talking to her. Having got suspicion, she went to Sayatkharda and came to know that he had married one Shilpa Khobragade by registered marriage. Then she lodged the report with Police that she was raped by him on several occasions on the promise of marriage and was cheated accordingly.

ARGUMENTS:

5. On the basis of the above facts, the learned counsel for the applicants argued that these complainants are admittedly major and the facts clearly demonstrate that they had consensual sex with the applicants. Counsel for the applicants argued that in the wake of consensual sex with full understanding of the complainants, no offence of rape can be said to have been constituted. According to them, these being the admitted facts, the act of consensual sex was a voluntary act on their part and there can be no offence of rape in the wake of consent, which is loud and clear from the facts as stated above. Counsel for the applicants, therefore, argued that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail since the complainants were voluntarily willing party to the intercourse which does not constitute rape.

6. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the arguments advanced by the applicants are based on the old unamended provisions of Section 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the offence having been committed after coming into force of the amendment, the defence of consensual sex cannot stand. The learned A.P.P, therefore prayed for dismissal of these applications.

CONSIDERATION:

7. The question involved in these applications is of some importance. The question has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicants, at this stage of consideration of application for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the applicants relied on the decisions in Deepak Gulati ..vs.. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675; Kaini Rajan ..vs.. State of Kerala; (2013) 9 SCC 113; K. P. Thimmappa Gowda ..vs.. State of Karnataka; (2011) 14 SCC 475; Vinod Kumar..vs..State of Kerala; (2014) 5 SCC 678.

I have perused the above decisions and I find that all these decisions are prior to the Parliamentary amendment in relation to the subject matter and, therefore, there is no point in referring to those decisions. That being so, I proceed further.

9. Apropos the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (13 of 2013), Section 9, w.e.f. 03.02.2013, the amendment made material changes. Here, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of Section 375 of the IPC defining Rape. In my opinion, in the present matter, Explanation-2 to Section 375 and Section 376 (2) (n) are relevant, which read as under:

'Section 375:

A man is said to commit "rape" if he-

(a) to (d) …..

First to Seventhly …..

Explanation 1…..

Explanation 2.- Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or nonverbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:

376 . Punishment for rape –

(1) ...

(2) ...

(a) to (m)

(n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.'

The use of word 'unequivocal' in the above Explanation-2 is most crucial in the amended provision. The meaning of the word 'unequivocal' in the Blacks Law Dictionary is as under:

'Unequivocal : Unambiguous; clear; free from uncertainty.'

As per Websters Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Education, 2004) the meaning of word 'unequivocal' is as under.

'Unequivocal: Understandable in only one way; distinct; plain'

10. Perusal of the meaning of the word 'Unequivocal' accompanied by the word voluntary agreement, to my mind, shows that though in all these cases, there is a reason to believe about the consensual sex of the complainant being major, there is no doubt of the complainant being a willing party to the intercourse at their own. Hence, there was voluntary agreement. But the question is; whether the act was unequivocal? In the light of the facts stated above, one will have to hold, prima facie, that the consent, which is given for the intercourse, was not unequivocal. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are not at fault because there was clear cut consent b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

y complainant but then this court is unable to countenance the stand since the word unequivocal has been inserted in the Explanation-2 as an integral part of the word voluntary agreement. That is the will of the Parliament. There is no manner of doubt that the major women in these cases, with full understanding and conscience, went ahead in entering into sexual intercourses which should not constitute rape. But then the fact remains that personal opinion or feeling of this Court has no place in law and the will of Parliament must be held to be supreme. I, therefore, hold that prima facie the applicants are guilty the offence of rape in the absence of 'unequivocal and voluntary agreement.' 11. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Application Nos.218/2015, 257/2015 and 309/2015 are rejected. (ii) The observations made in this order are limited for decision of the anticipatory bail applications.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 Atmaram Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-07-2020 Vikas & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Maharashtra State Transport Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Registered under Society's Registration Act, 1860, Through its founder- President M.N. Navale & Another Versus Directorate of Technical Education Maharashtra State & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Mohan Shamrao Shinde Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2020 Gorakh Ramdas Kandge & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-07-2020 Mhaibub D. Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Premier Employees & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-07-2020 Makrand Chandrakant Bapardekar Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Imran Mohd. Salar Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-07-2020 Devanand Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
02-07-2020 Nagpur Agriculture Equipment Engineers Private Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Premnath National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Piya Mahantaney & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Sachin Chhotu Pawar & Another Versus The Collector Raigad & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
24-03-2020 Skylark Mansions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by the Director Saleem Sheriff Versus M/s. Skylark Ithaca Buyers Welfare Association, Represented by its Joint Secretary Sachin Gangadharswamy High Court of Karnataka
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage And Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur