PRAVIN ALIAS PARYA SOPAN SABLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:41122


                                                                       CriAppeal-31-2024
                                                   -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2024

                 Pravin Alias Parya Sopan Sable
                 Age 32 years, Occupation- unemployed,
                 R/o. Gautam Naga, Lane No. 14,
                 Pisadevi Road, Aurangabad,
                 District Aurangabad.                               … Appellant
                                                                    [Accused No.1]
                        Versus

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra

                 2.     X – name withheld.                          … Respondents
                                                         [Respondent No.2-Informant]
                                                    …..
                          Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Appellant.
                            Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                      Ms. Pramila V. Giri, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (Appointed)
                                                    .....

                                          CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on         : 04.09.2026
                                          Pronounced on       : 07.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.     This appeal impugns the judgment and order of conviction

                 dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

                 Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 217 of 2015 convicting the

                 appellant for offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to

                 suffer 10 years imprisonment and to pay fine.
                                                     CriAppeal-31-2024
                                 -2-

2.    Case of prosecution in trial court was that, when informant

PW2 was present in her house with her 5 years old son, accused no.1

sought sexual favour but she refused, upon which he had forcible

sexual relation with her. Accused nos. 2 and 3 videographed the

incident whereas one of them pushed the minor son of victim. Sister

of victim PW2 came and thereafter police were approached and

occurrence was reported, resulting into registration of crime bearing

no. 354 of 2015 for offences under Sections 376-D and 354 of IPC.



      PW7, who was entrusted with the investigation, completed the

same and chargesheeted accused, who was tried vide above Sessions

Case. At trial case of prosecution rested its case on the evidence of

seven witnesses as well as documentary evidence. On duly

appreciating both, and on hearing parties, learned trial court was

pleased to acquit accused nos. 2 and 3 but appellant came to be

convicted for offence under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, instant appeal.



                           SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant-Accused :

3.    Pleading innocence and false implication, learned counsel for

the appellant/accused no.1 took this Court through the testimony of

PW2 victim and would submit that her story is unbelievable. That, it
                                                      CriAppeal-31-2024
                                   -3-

is not possible to commit forceful rape in presence of child and that

too, in the kitchen part of the house where there are articles and

rough surface, moreover without suffering injuries on the person of

the informant. According to him, medical evidence does not support

prosecution story and therefore it is unsafe to rely on the same as,

according to him, there is no corroboration whatsoever in any

manner. He would submit that, it is impossible to commit offence like

forceful rape without there being any injuries on the person of victim

or accused.



4.    He further pointed out that, another witness for prosecution is

very sister of the victim, but she did not report about rape and rather

she merely spoke about quarrel and sexual assault. Consequently,

according to him, very complainant and her own sister, who

accompanied her to police station, are at variance on major count.



5.    He further submitted that, here, even version of victim is not

consistent, i.e. her statement before learned JMFC under Section 164

CrPC, statement before police while lodging report as well as while

deposing in the court. Consequently, he submits that, benefit of the

same should go the accused. He further submitted that in fact,

testimony of victim is not of sterling quality.
                                                       CriAppeal-31-2024
                                     -4-




6.          Criticizing the prosecution case on the point of scientific

evidence, he submitted that though case of prosecution is about

seizure of clothes of victim carrying semen, and though DNA report to

that extent is placed on record, very expert who conducted DNA

analysis has not been examined and therefore, according to him, no

evidentiary value could be attributed to the same. He pointed out

that, here, there is serious doubt about very chain of custody of

scientific evidence. He would submit that, prosecution failed to

examine who collected the sample, whether they were in sealed

condition or not and in whose custody the same were retained

without being tampered till it was dispatched to the analyzer.

Resultantly, under such circumstances, he seeks to discredit the

scientific evidence.



7.          In support of above submissions, he sought reliance on the

following rulings :


     (i)      Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu ; AIR
              Online 2025 SC 667.

     (ii)     Karandeep Sharma Alias Razia Alias Raju v. State of
              Uttarakhand ; AIR Online 2025 SC 543.
                                                              CriAppeal-31-2024
                                         -5-




     (iii) Parvej Khan v. State of Maharashtra ; AIR Online 2023
           Bom. 2268.

     (iv)    Lalliram and others v. State of M.P. ; AIR 2009 SC
             (Supp) 902.

     (v)     Ram Nivas v. State of Karnataka ; AIR Online 1993 SC
             49.

     (vi)    Kalyan Sudam Ramgude v. The State of Maharashtra
             and another ; (Criminal Appeal NO. 312 of 2024 decided
             by this Court on 30.04.2026.


On behalf of the State as well as Victim :


8.          In answer to above, both, learned APP as well as learned

counsel for the compliant, would justify the order of conviction by

pointing out that here, there is credible, trustworthy evidence of

victim. That, there is prompt reporting. Victim’s story has remained

unshaken and therefore her evidence being of sterling quality, it is

their submission that, there is no need for corroboration even from

medical evidence or scientific evidence. However, it is submitted that,

here, there is positive DNA report and the same is rightly relief by

learned        trial   court   for   accepting   the   case   of   prosecution.

Consequently, they pray to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
                                                       CriAppeal-31-2024
                                   -6-


                EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT


9.      As stated above, prosecution has rested its case on the evidence

of seven witnesses. PW1 and PW4 acted as pancha to spot, who

identified panchanama Exhibit 37. PW2 is the victim. PW3 is the

minor son of PW2. PW5 is sister of PW2. PW6 is the medical expert

who conducted medical examination of victim on 16.07.2015 with

history of sexual assault on 15.07.2015. PW7 is the Investigating

Officer who narrated all the steps taken by him during investigation.



                      ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION


10.     Studied, re-appreciated and re-analyzed the evidence. The

fundament grounds on which appeal is based are:



        Firstly, victim’s testimony failing to inspire confidence as, in

spite of allegation of forceful rape, no injuries are noticed either on

external examination or internal examination of victim and she to be

addicted to liquor.



        Secondly, there to be no corroboration to the testimony of

victim as her own sister merely speaks about sexual assault and not

rape.
                                                      CriAppeal-31-2024
                                  -7-




      Thirdly, false implication for refusal to return the house

property, and



      Fourthly, regarding chain of custody of DNA to be doubtful.



11.   It is to be noted that though three accused were chargesheeted

for offence under Sections 376-D and 354-C of IPC, sole appellant is

convicted for offence under Section 376 of IPC.



12.   Visited the evidence of informant PW2 at Exhibit 42, wherein it

emerges that, she deposed that on the date of incident which took five

to six years ago at 7.30 p.m., appellant entered her house, pressed her

breast. At that time, her five years old son was only present in the

house. Accused requested for sexual pleasure, to which she denied

and therefore she claims to have pushed him raising shouts, but he

made her lie down, lifted her sari and committed rape on her. Friend

of appellant/accused no.1 pushed her son and videographed the

incident, and appellant threatened to slit her throat if she goes to

police, after which her son, her own mother and sister as well as her

daughter came and they all went to CIDCO police station where she

lodged report Exhibit 43. Apparently, report is lodged on the next day
                                                       CriAppeal-31-2024
                                   -8-

at 02:03 hours i.e. on the same intervening night of 15 th and 16th July

2015.



        Initial cross is on the point of her husband conducting business

of liquor, parents of accused purchasing house property of her parents

but she denied that she insisted for return of the same by taking

money. She admitted that, she herself and her husband are in the

habit of consuming liquor. She admitted that she was not wearing

undergarment but was wearing petticoat. Rest is all denial.



13.     Therefore, the above discussed evidence shows that there is no

serious challenge to the very occurrence of accused entering the

house, initially seeking sexual favour and on refusal, making her fall

down and committing rape on her after pulling over her sari. She has

deposed that her son was also present there and her son was pushed

and he ran to call her sister, who came along with mother and other

daughter.



14.     The next witness is PW3 who is a child of PW2 and he also in

his evidence at Exhibit 48 deposed about occurrence taking place

around 7.30 p.m., three persons entering in their house, one of them

laying his mother down, one of them recording the incident and one
                                                      CriAppeal-31-2024
                                  -9-

of them assaulting him and so he going to his maternal aunt’s place to

call her. He also identified appellant/accused before the court

deposing that he laid his mother down.



      In cross, he admitted that at that time he was in the backside of

the room, but he denied that he was tutored to depose by his mother

and grandmother.



15.   Thus, presence of child is not rendered doubtful by the defence.

Rather, victim, i.e. mother of child, marks his presence and he being

pushed by accused. Even child witness deposed that three accused

persons came to his house and one of them made his mother fall

down, and he was also pushed, and so he went to the sister of his

mother and they accordingly came.



16.   PW5 is the sister of PW2, and she in her evidence at Exhibit 79

testified that, son of victim came to her house and told her that his

mother has fallen down and someone causing assault to her.

Therefore, she and her mother went to the house of victim. At such

point of time, victim was lying there and victim disclosed that accused

caused sexual assault on her. Then they went to police station. But in

chief itself she stated that as there were many police personnel, they
                                                       CriAppeal-31-2024
                                  -10-

did not report the incident of sexual assault and rather told that there

was quarrel. But she further stated that during medical examination,

victim disclosed about sexual assault.



      In her cross, omission is brought that on the day of incident,

she was in the house till afternoon and that, victim told her that,

accused Ganya was out of the house. But these are minor omissions.

Rest of the suggestions are denied by this witness, except admitting

that she is unable to read and write.



17.   Resultantly, here, the chronology of events narrated by victim

about while she was with her child, accused entering her house,

seeking sexual pleasure and on her refusal, making her lie down and

committing rape, has remained intact. Child witness was party to the

act of accused making his mother lie down and while he was pushed,

he seems to have rushed to PW5, who came to victim’s place and also

learnt from her that accused raped her.



18.   Medical witness PW6 deposed about noting history of sexual

assault by one person and incident being videographed by two others

at 7.30 p.m. on 15.07.2015 and she being brought to Government

Medical College and Hospital with LPC at 3.45 a.m. on 16.07.2015.
                                                          CriAppeal-31-2024
                                  -11-

Therefore, on the same night PW2 was referred to medical

examination. Doctor stated that he did not notice external injuries or

on the genitals. However, on the basis of his examination, he opined

that possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out.



19.   Above testimony of the victim is criticized on the ground that it

fails to inspire confidence. But, as stated above, her version seems to

be trustworthy on the point of sexual favour initially being asked and

on refusal she being forced upon. Nothing adverse or damaging has

been brought in her cross to the extent of rape. Her evidence appears

to be natural and one does not come across any material omissions or

contradictions so as to disbelieve her testimony. Mere suggestion is

given that parents of accused purchased house from her parents and

she wanted it back. No documentary evidence is placed to that extent

on record to probabilize this defence.



20.   Absence of injuries on the person or private parts of the victim

is of no significance and law to this extent has been dealt and

discussed in numerous judgments including Gurucharan Singh v.

State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2661 ; Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana,

AIR 1980 SC 1252 ; State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30 ;

Narayanamma (Kum) v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1994 (5) SCC
                                                      CriAppeal-31-2024
                                 -12-

728 ; State of Rajasthan v. Shri Narayan, (1992) 3 SCC 615 and

Devinder Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2003) 11

SCC 488.



21.   Here, apart from oral account which inspires confidence,

prosecution seems to be relying on scientific evidence i.e. DNA.



22.   Such evidence is questioned by learned counsel for the

appellant for want of proof of chain of custody. Learned counsel

would submit that, when samples were collected, by whom, and in

whose custody they were retained till dispatch to FSL, is not

substantiated by prosecution. In the light of such ground, record is

put to minute scrutiny.



23.   Thereupon it is noticed that clothes of victim were seized in

presence of PW4 on 16.07.2015, i.e. on the very next day at 13:30 to

14:00 hours, i.e. sari, blouse and petticoat. Record shows that, on

16.07.2015 itself, accused person were referred for medical checkup

and there is communication by the Investigating Officer to the

medical officer to procure semen samples of all three accused. Doctor

seems to have collected the semen samples and on receipt of the

same, record shows that vide outward no. 3398/2015, within two
                                                       CriAppeal-31-2024
                                  -13-

days i.e. on 18.07.2015, the cloths and samples are dispatched to the

analyzer. CA report also confirms receipt of samples on 20.07.2015.

There is no serious challenge in the cross of Investigating Officer on

the point of custody of muddemal, more particularly clothes and

semen samples of accused.



24.   In the DNA analysis Exhibit 121, interpretation is “male

hyplotypes of semen stain cutting from ex.3 petticoat of victim

matched     with   male   hyplotypes     of   ex.2   blood   sample   of

appellant/accused. Communication to the Medical Officer by the

Investigating Officer dated 16.07.2015 shows that request was made

to the medical authorities to procure sample of semen, nails, pubic

hair, hair and blood samples of accused for DNA. Therefore, there is

prompt collection of samples of accused for DNA and its dispatch for

analysis.



25.   Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the

recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kattavellai

(supra), more particularly the observations of the Hon’bel Apex Court

in paragraphs 28 to 31. Indeed, in serious offences like murder and

rape, prosecution is duty bound to prove chain of custody to maintain

its integrity and rule out its tampering, and said point is dealt in the
                                                      CriAppeal-31-2024
                                 -14-

above ruling. However, in that case, Hon’ble Apex Court noticed that,

samples were sent to FSL after unexplained delay of 41 days and

therefore, doubt was entertained about collecting, sealing, storage for

employing such evidence. Here, as stated above, it is not so.

Occurrence is around 7.30 p.m. on 15.07.2015. FIR is at around

02:00 to 03:00 hours i.e. on the same intervening night and through

PW4 spot pacha, clothes of victim are shown to be seized on

16.07.2015 itself at around 13:30 to 14:00 hours, and vide

communication by the Investigating Officer, seizure is shown to be

dispatched to FSL on 18.07.2015 which was received to the FSL on

20.07.2015. Therefore, here, apparently there is promptness in

collection of clothes of victim and more particularly her petticoat

which, at the time of seizure, also reflected semen spots, and when

analyzed, turned out to be positive and there is DNA report to that

extent confirming semen to be of accused appellant. Consequently,

here, there is no reason to raise doubt over the collection of sample,

clothes and its analysis. Precisely for such reasons, the judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court referred above, does not come to the aid of

accused.



26.   On the point of probative value of DNA and non-examination of

the expert who conducted DNA, reliance is also placed on Karandeep
                                                         CriAppeal-31-2024
                                   -15-

(supra), Kattavellai (supra). However, in both above rulings, cases of

prosecution were based on circumstantial evidence and theory of last

seen together respectively.



27.     In Lalliram (supra) version of prosecutrix about place of

occurrence and name of accused who committed rape was found to

be inconsistent coupled with inconsistent evidence of prosecution

witnesses.



        For the said reasons, facts in these cases differ from the case in

hand.



28.     Rather here, DNA is not the sole piece of evidence. In fact,

there is credible evidence of victim finding support from evidence of

her very son and sister. Such evidence would not get eclipsed merely

on failure of prosecution to examine the DNA analyst.



29.     Yet another ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant

is that, there is variance in the evidence of complainant, i.e. in her

narrative in FIR, in her testimony before learned Magistrate and

before the trial court. According to him, victim deposed before

learned Magistrate about accused indulging in bad act and it is
                                                         CriAppeal-31-2024
                                   -16-

ambiguous term and it is rather at variance from her statement before

the police as well as before the Court. It is to be noted that, victim is a

married lady having a child. While deposing before the Court, she

might have felt shy to narrate the actual occurrence in verbatim to the

act and therefore she might have used the words “bad act”. However,

while giving substantive evidence before the Court, she has

specifically deposed about she being raped and the evidence before

the trial court would prevail.



30.   As regards to the sister of victim is concerned, she indeed has

deposed that they reported sexual assault, but immediate to such

statement, there is explanation, which is plausible, that as there were

police persons in the police station, the incident was reported as mere

quarrel. But she added in further chief that, to the doctor as well as

police at the time of FIR, rape was reported.



31.   Learned counsel tried to submit that victim having admitted

that she was habituated to liquor consumption, her such conduct

makes her testimony unworthy of credence. However, there is no

force in such submission. It is also not the defence case, that at

relevant time, victim was under influence of liquor.
                                                          CriAppeal-31-2024
                                  -17-

32.   To sum up, this Court, on re-appreciation and re-analysis of the

evidence, is fo the firm opinion that the view taken by the learned

trial court is the possible view with such quality of evidence on

record. No patent perversity or illegality is brought to the notice of

this Court so as to interfere. Hence, following order :



                                ORDER

I.    The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.


II.   Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent respondent
no.2-victim, which is to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-
Committee, Aurangabad, is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only).




                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre