MUNGLYA ALIAS MANGESH MAHADEV BEDREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:11606


                                            (1)                      29criapl39.26-1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2026

                Munglya @ Mangesh S/o. Mahadev Bedre,
                Age-27 years, Occu-Agril,
                R/o. Varvanti, Tq. & Dist. Dharashiv              ...APPELLANT

                      VERSUS

                1.    The State of Maharashtra,
                      Through Police Inspector,
                      Police Station Dharashiv (Rural),
                      Tq. & Dist. Dharashiv

                2.    X. Y. Z.


                Mr. N. D. Kendre, Advocate h/f Mr. V. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the
                appellant
                Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for the respondents/State
                Mr. P. S. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 (through VC)

                                     CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                        DATE : 09th MARCH, 2026


                JUDGMENT :

                1.           Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant, the

                learned APP for the respondent and the learned Advocate for the

                victim.


                2.           By this appeal, a challenge to the judgment of conviction

                dated 31-12-2025, passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Special

                Court, Dharashiv in Sessions Case No.53/2022 by which the


                                                                                1 of 22
                            (2)                      29criapl39.26-1

appellant was convicted for commission of offences punishable under

Sections 376 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘the IPC’] and

was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay

fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month for commission of offence under Section 376. All the

sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused was

acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections

354(D), 504 and 506 of the IPC.


3.           In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 20-04-

2021 at about 02.30 am, the accused committed the rape on the

victim and said fact was noticed by the husband of the victim who

pulled the accused. The accused then ran away from the spot. The

incident dated 20-04-2021 was not reported to the police

immediately, on the ground that the victim and her family would be

defamed in the society. On 18-05-2021, the First Information Report

was lodged, as the accused blew the whistle after seeing the victim.

This incident has resulted in the registration of the First Information

Report No. 109/2024 against the appellant, his consequent arrest,

forwarding    him   for   medical   examination,    the   drawing      of

panchanama, the seizure of clothes, and, finally, the submission of

the charge-sheet.



                                                                 2 of 22
                            (3)                      29criapl39.26-1

4.          As the trial court found prima facie case, the charge was

framed below Exh. 7 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharashiv on

06-10-2022 for commission of offences punishable under Sections

376, 354 (D)(1), 323, 504, 506 of the IPC.


5.          The accused did not plead guilty, which resulted in the

examination of a total of four witnesses at the instance of the

prosecution. The accused was questioned under section 313 of the Cr.

P. C. below Exh. 37 on 08-12-2025, in which his case was one of total

denial. In answer to question No.36, the accused had stated that the

agriculture field falling in the share of the accuse so also borewell

were with the victim and his family and in spite of demand, it was

not returned to the accused. Therefore, the victim and her husband

had deposed against him.


6.          The accused neither entered into the witness box nor

examined any witness. The trial court after considering the evidence

on record, convicted the appellant as stated above and sentenced him

after honouring the mandate of Section 235 of the Cr. P. C. At this

stage, it is necessary to mention that perusal of the record would

reveal that, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was

24 years old, whereas the victim of the crime was 31 years old.




                                                                  3 of 22
                             (4)                     29criapl39.26-1

7.          It is worth noting that the defence has admitted Exh. 23,

i.e. medical examination of the victim, so also, Exh. 24, i.e. seizure

panchanama of the clothes of the accused on 19-05-2021, Exh. 25,

report of the examination of the accused for Evidence of Sexual

Assault of Potency. Exh. 26 , the arrest form.


8.          The record further shows that the accused is nephew of

the husband of the victim.


9.          In the aforesaid background, the learned Advocate for

the appellant has contended that the entire case advanced by the

prosecution is false and fabricated. According to him, the delay in

lodging the first information report is not explained, which goes to

the root of the matter. Further, the fact cannot be ignored that the

accused was 24 years old, a relative of the victim, whereas the victim

was 31 years old. According to him, a ring of truth is missing from

the prosecution's case.


10.         Per contra, learned APP submitted that the testimony of

PW-1 and PW-2, i.e., the victim and her husband, is reliable and

cogent, and there is absolutely nothing to disbelieve their testimony.

He submitted that the accused had already admitted the medical

examination report of the victim and the accused.


                                                                4 of 22
                             (5)                       29criapl39.26-1

11.          Learned Advocate for the victim has submitted that just

because there is a delay in lodging the first information report, it will

not destroy the case of the victim and the reason for delay was

defamation of the victim. He further submitted that just because the

victim was older than the accused and a major in the eyes of the law,

it would not mean that the offence of rape cannot be committed.


12.          With the able assistance of all the respective counsels for

the parties, I have gone through the record of the case and have also

tested their arguments.


13.          PW-1, who is the victim of a crime, has deposed that she

resides with her husband, children and in-laws together, and the

accused is her nephew. The incident occurred on 19-04-2021. Due to

Covid-19, they had gone to reside in the agricultural field, and on the

day of the incident, after taking dinner, they slept, at which time two

children were with her. The victim's husband had gone to the village

to fetch water from the borewell. At about 02.00 to 03.00 O’clock in

the night, the accused came into the house, asked the victim to wake

up, saying that he had to do the work. The victim asked him why the

accused was saying this, to which he repeated earlier version .




                                                                  5 of 22
                            (6)                       29criapl39.26-1

14.         Thereafter, he removed his clothes, as well as the clothes

of the victim and was having a physical relationship, at which time,

victim’s husband arrived, who was having a torch/ battery with him.

The husband of the victim then pulled the accused. The victim raised

the shouts. But the accused had beaten her.


15.         The victim further stated that, since her husband had

served as President of the Dispute Resolution Committee for one

month, they did not take any action against the accused and kept

mum because they would be defamed. She further admitted that the

accused's field is adjacent to their field and that, after the incident,

the accused used to blow the whistle; therefore, she was afraid and,

thereafter, a report was lodged, which she proved below Exh. 19.


16.         The statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.

P. C., which was below Exh. 20. She also stated that she had shown

the spot of the incident to the police, and the clothes that she was

wearing at the time of the incident were identified by her, which

were given Articles A, B and C. She identified the accused, who was

present in the court.


17.         The victim of the crime was subjected to cross-

examination. She admitted that accused is younger to her and was


                                                                 6 of 22
                               (7)                   29criapl39.26-1

married person having two children. She further admitted that it was

summer and the season of harvesting. She stated that she had no

house in the field, only a cattle shed. She denied the suggestion that

adjacent to her field, the work of harvesting was going on. She

further admitted that from the date of the incident until lodging the

first information report, she was in the village, and the fact was

informed to the accused's cousin. She submitted that the incident was

not narrated to her in-laws.


18.         At the time of incident, the victim stated that her two

children were studying in class 2nd and class 4th. She had also

received medical treatment at the District Hospital in Dharashiv and

handed over the medical papers to the police. In her deposition, she

admitted that the accused's agriculture field was situated on the side

of the accused's agriculture field, and that before the incident, the

measurement of the accused's agriculture field and the victim's

agriculture field was carried out by the villagers. She stated that she

was not aware whether the accused's land had fallen to her share.

She admitted that they have a very limited relationship with the

accused family.


19.         She admitted in cross-examination that whenever a

dispute arises in the village, her husband, as President of the Dispute

                                                                 7 of 22
                            (8)                      29criapl39.26-1

Resolution Committee, is approached. If it is not settled, he suggests

that the parties should approach the police station. She admitted that

whenever the police visit the village, they call her husband for a

meeting. She denied that, before the lodgment of the first

information report, a quarrel had taken place between her husband

and the accused on account of the borewell.


20.         PW-1 has stated that on 18-05-2021, in the morning

hours, her husband visited the police station and informed them that

they would lodge the first information report. Still, in the evening,

the victim's husband informed that, since the officer had gone

outside, they were called at that time. She also admitted that her

husband had informed her he had spoken with the police about the

matter. She denied that she was told by her husband as to what to

disclose to the police. That evening, she and her husband had been to

the police station, where they stayed till 07.00 O’clock, and after

putting their signatures, they came back home.


21.         PW-1 admitted that before recording her statement in

court, she was given a copy of the complaint for reading. As she was

not in a position to read, a request was made to the police to read it

over, and she deposed accordingly. She further stated that when the

complaint was read over to her, she had known its contents. She

                                                                8 of 22
                            (9)                      29criapl39.26-1

denied the suggestion that she was deposing as instructed by the

police. She admitted that, at the time her statement was recorded in

court before the Magistrate, her husband was with her. Other

suggestions were denied. At this stage, it is necessary to mention here

that the court had asked her a question as to whether on 19-04-2021,

a physical relationship was with her consent, which she denied.


22.         PW-2 is the husband of the victim who has deposed that

on the day of the incident on 19-04-2021, he had gone to the village

at about 12.00 to 12.30 at night to supply water and returned at

02.30 to 03.00 am. At this time, he found the accused having a

physical relationship with his wife and therefore pulled him. But the

accused fled away from the spot. He then enquired from the PW-1,

and she disclosed that since she refused to have a relationship with

the accused, the accused had beaten her. He deposed that, as

President of the Dispute Resolution Committee, to avoid defamation,

he did not narrate the incident to anyone. He stated that even after

the incident, the accused started following his wife, and to avoid

further harassment, a report was lodged. He stated that the statement

was recorded before the Magistrate. The contents of which were true,

and he identified his signature. Accordingly, the statement was

exhibited as Exh. 22.



                                                                  9 of 22
                            (10)                        29criapl39.26-1

23.         In the cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that he

normally used to visit the police station as the President of the

Dispute Resolution Committee and disclosed the incident to his

parents. He also admitted that after lodging the complaint, he had

carried out a private measurement of the agricultural field. Still, he

denied the suggestion that he was on enimical terms with the family

members of the accused due to a land dispute. He denied the

suggestion that, in the measurement, it was found that the accused's

share had fallen in his favour. He admitted that there was a borewell

on the accused's field. He denied the other suggestion regarding the

land dispute.


24.         He further denied that on 18-05-2021 in the morning, he

had been to the police station. He stated that on that day, between

10.00 and 10.30, he and his wife had been to the police station and

returned at about 06.00 p.m. The other suggestion was denied.


25.         PW-3 is one Sachin who was a witness to the spot

panchanama and seizure of clothes of the victim. He has proved the

spot panchanama below Exh. 29. He has also proved the seizure of

clothes of the victim below Exh.31 and seizure of clothes of accused

below Exh.24 from police station. In the cross-examination he has

admitted that he has acted as panch in several cases.

                                                                  10 of 22
                            (11)                       29criapl39.26-1

26.         The testimony of this witness may not be very relevant

for deciding the issue involved in the present case.


27.         PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who has deposed that

he had carried out the investigation of crime No.109/2021 and

thereafter arrested the accused, forwarded the accused for medical

examination, and prepared the panchanama of seizure of clothes. He

also deposed to the further part of the investigation regarding the

video recording of the victim's statement and the preparation of the

DVD, including taking the hash value and the certificate issued under

the Indian Evidence Act, below Exh. 34. He proved the said exhibit.

He submitted that the clothes of the victim were forwarded for

forensic examination by issuing the letter below, Exh. 35. He also

stated that he has recorded the statement of the victim and the

accused.


28.         In the cross-examination, nothing helpful for defence

was brought on record.


29.         If the testimony of PW-1 is taken into consideration, it

would reveal that on the day of the incident, it was a dark hour when

the incident had taken place. The victim has categorically stated that

at the time of the incident, her two children were with her, and the


                                                                 11 of 22
                            (12)                     29criapl39.26-1

accused had first removed his clothes as well as the victim's clothes.

The question is whether this witness's testimony is reliable and

cogent. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that when the PW-2

was returning, he was carrying a torch and noticed that the accused

was having a physical relationship with PW-1. He then pulled the

accused. But the accused ran away from the spot. Thus, it reveals that

the accused removed his clothes, ran away from the spot without

them, and what happened to those clothes. It is not even the case

with the PW-1 and 2 that those clothes were given to the police by

them. It is also not brought on record by way of investigation as to

what happened to those clothes and whether the accused ran in the

same condition.


30.         Be that as it may, this may not be very crucial for

deciding the issue involved in the case. But it would give the accused

a helping hand in defending against false implication. Another fact

that has come to light is that there was a borewell on the accused's

agricultural field. PW-1 has admitted that there was a measurement

of the land before lodging of the first information report, whereas

PW-2, in the cross-examination, has admitted that he measured the

land privately after lodging the complaint. This clearly shows that

there was a dispute over the boundary or share of the accused's



                                                               12 of 22
                              (13)                       29criapl39.26-1

agricultural field with the prosecutrix and her husband. It is also clear

from the record that the field of the accused is situated on the East

side of the agricultural field of the victim. Thus, it is crystal clear that

the agricultural dispute is brought on record. It is in this background

that the prosecution's testimony will have to be examined.


31.          PW-1, though according to the prosecution, was

subjected to the forcible sexual intercourse on 19-04-2021,

surprisingly, the statement of the children was not recorded. The

prosecution may have its own reason for not recording the statement.

But, for the said, the prosecution should have brought reasons on

record. It is further necessary to mention that the PW-1 stated that

the incident was not narrated to the in-laws, whereas the PW-2 stated

that it was narrated to the parents. These two versions are significant

because the accused is a cousin of PW-1. Thus, it would have been

well brought to the prosecution's attention what steps were taken by

the elders in the family. Surprisingly, the parents of the PW-2 were

not examined.


32.          There is one more aspect that needs to be taken into

consideration, which is the delay in lodging the first information

report. The incident occurred in the intervening night of 19-04-2021

and 20-04-2021. In contrast, the first information report was lodged

                                                                    13 of 22
                            (14)                     29criapl39.26-1

on 18-05-2021. Thus, the prosecution did not prove the huge delay

by advancing cogent grounds. Reasons advanced include defamation,

which might have been faced by the family of the victim, but same

will have to be tested from the surrounding circumstances, also. In

this regard, it is necessary to mention that the husband of the victim

was serving as the President of the Dispute Resolution Committee,

and this was to explore the possibility of settlement when a dispute

was put before him. His further job was to forward the authorities' ,

the dispute which is   not settled amicably. In this background, it

cannot be believed that, on the grounds of defamation in society, the

report was lodged at a belated stage. It is not even the case of the

prosecution that the accused had any criminal antecedents; it was

due to fear that the report was not lodged. Admittedly, PW-2 was the

accused's uncle, and he could have taken appropriate steps.


33.         This further takes me to one more aspect of the case, i.e.

lodging of the report on the day of 18-05-2021. PW-1, in her cross-

examination, stated that on 18-05-2021, her husband informed them

that they would lodge the report, but after returning home, PW-2

informed PW-1 that the police officer had gone outside; they were

called at evening hours. It was also stated by the PW-1 that her




                                                               14 of 22
                              (15)                    29criapl39.26-1

husband had informed her that PW-2 had returned after discussing

the matter with the police.


34.         It is thus crystal clear that in the morning hours, PW-2

had discussed the matter with the police. Surprisingly, the report was

not lodged at that time. It is a well-settled principle of criminal law

that anyone can set criminal law in motion, and as to why the

husband did not lodge the report at the morning hours on 18-05-

2021, the prosecution has also not explained. Further aspect that

before recording the statement of PW-1 under Section 164 of the Cr.

P. C, she was given a copy of the complaint for reading, and since she

was not in a position to read, she had requested the police to read it

over to her. Police then read over the complaint and thereafter her

statement was recorded. The said act of the police, though, can be

called an irregularity, in the peculiar facts of the case, but it will

reflect on the conduct of the police authorities. The admission of the

victim that when she put her signature on the complaint, she came to

know about the contents, which also creates the doubt regarding

genesis of the offence. Thus, all these factors cast doubt on the

victim's testimony.


35.         So far as the contention of the learned Advocate for the

victim that delay in lodging the first information report will not go to

                                                                15 of 22
                             (16)                      29criapl39.26-1

the root of the matter, suffice it to say that said principle cannot be

made applicable with a fixed formula. It will depend on the facts and

circumstances of the case. In the present case, it is already stated that

there is absolutely no proper explanation for the delay in lodging the

first information report.


36.          Even in statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C.,

more particularly in answer to question No. 36, the accused has

categorically stated that part of his land and borewell are with the

PW-1 and PW-2, and, despite demand, they have not been returned

to him. Thus, the line of cross-examination adopted , the evidence

tendered, and the defence taken by the accused under Section 313,

shows that case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.


37.          At this stage, it is necessary to consider the meaning of

‘reasonable doubt’. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramakant

Rai Vs Madan Rai and others reported in 2003 (12) SCC 395 has

observed as under:


             “24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free
             from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford
             any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable
             doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response.
             Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the
             guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or
             from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague
             apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary,

                                                                 16 of 22
                            (17)                     29criapl39.26-1

            trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based
            upon reason and common-sense.”

38.         Thus, it is crystal clear that emotional ground cannot be

called a reasonable doubt. The further fact that the battery / torch

were not seized from the PW-2 also goes to show that the prosecution

has not brought sufficient material on record to prove its case beyond

a reasonable doubt.


39.         Now the question is whether the testimony of the victim

can be called one of sterling quality or not. In this regard, it is

necessary to take into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Nirmal Premkumar and Ors. vs. State Rep.

by Inspector reported in 2024 (20) SCC 293, more particularly in

para 22 to 24.


            22.          This court was tasked to adjudicate a matter
            involving gang rape allegations under Section 376(2)(g)
            IPC in Rai Sandeep Vs State (NCT of Delhi). The court
            found totally conflicting version of the prosecutrix, from
            what was stated in the compliant and what was deposed
            before court, resulting in material inconsistencies.
            Reversing the conviction and holding that the
            prosecutrix cannot be held to be a “sterling witness”, the
            court opined as under:

                  22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling
                  witness’ should be of a very high quality and
                  calibre whose version should, therefore, be
                  unassailable. The court considering the version of

                                                               17 of 22
         (18)                      29criapl39.26-1

such witness should be in a position to accept it
for its face value without any hesitation. To test
the quality of such a witness, the status of the
witness would be immaterial and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made
by such a witness. What would be more relevant
would be the consistency of the statement right
from the starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial statement
and ultimately before the court. It should be
natural and consistent with the case of the
prosecution qua the accused. There should not be
any prevarication in the version of such a witness.
The witness should be in a position to withstand
the cross-examination of any length and
howsoever strenuous it may be and under no
circumstances should give room for any doubt as
to the factum of the occurrence, the persons
involved as well as the sequence of it. Such a
versiion should have co-relation with each and
every one of other supporting material such as the
recoveries made, the weapon used, the manner of
offence committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every other
witness. It can even be stated that it should abe
akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not be
any missing link in the chain of circumstances to
hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged
against him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as other such
similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such
a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’
whose version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the
version of the said witness on the core spectrum of

                                             18 of 22
               (19)                      29criapl39.26-1

      the crime should remain intact while all other
      attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary
      and material objects should match the said version
      in material particulars in order to enable the court
      trying the offence to rely on the core version to
      sieve the other supporting materials for holding
      the offender guilty of the charge alleged.

23.           In Krishan Kumar Malik Vs State of
Haryana, this court laid down that although the victim’s
solitary evidence in matters related to sexual offences is
generally deemed sufficient to hold an accused guilty,
the conviction cannot be sustained if the prosecutrix’s
testimony is found unreliable and insufficient due to
identified flaws and lacunae. It was held thus:

      31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused
      guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the
      solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient
      provided the same inspires confidence and
      appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished
      and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case
      in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing
      several lacunae, which have already been
      projected hereinabove, would go to show that her
      evidence does not fall in that category and cannot
      be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the
      said offences.

      32. Indeed there are several significant
      variations in material facts in her Section 164
      statement, Section 161 statement (Cr. P. C.), FIR
      and deposition in court. Thus, it was necessary to
      get her evidence corroborated independently,
      which they could have done either by examination
      of Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were present
      in the house at the time of her alleged abduction.
      The record shows that Bimla Devi though cited as

                                                   19 of 22
                             (20)                     29criapl39.26-1

                   a witness was not examined and later given up by
                   the Public Prosecutor on the ground that she has
                   been won over by the appellant.

             24.            What flows from the aforesaid decisions is
             that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable
             nor wholly unreliable, the court should strive to find out
             the true genesis of the incident. The court can rely on
             the victim as a ‘sterling witness’ without further
             corroboration, but the quality and credibility must be
             exceptionally high. The statement of the prosecutrix
             ought to be consistent from the beginning to the end
             (minor inconsistences excepted), from the initial
             statement to the oral testimony, without creating any
             doubt qua the prosecution’s case. While a victim’s
             testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an
             unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix
             marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it
             difficult for a conviction to be recorded.

40.          If in the aforesaid background testimony of the witness is

taken into consideration, it would reveal that the testimony of PW-1

cannot be called sterling in quality.


41.          Thus, I conclude that the prosecution has not proved the

offences punishable under Section 376 & 323 of the IPC. This now

leads to further discussion regarding the accused's conviction under

Section 323 of the IPC. It is a well-settled principle of law that, for

proving an offence under Section 323 of the IPC, medical evidence is

not required. In this case, the core case of the prosecution is not

proved, and therefore, it logically follows that even the offence under


                                                                20 of 22
                              (21)                      29criapl39.26-1

Section 323 of the IPC is not proved. The admission on the part of the

victim that she had given medical papers of her treatment to the

police, is brought on the record. Those documents are surprisingly

not taken help by the prosecution. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2

fails to inspire confidence, and therefore, I am of the opinion that the

trial court did not consider the evidence correctly and properly. In

that view of the matter, the following order is passed.


                                 ORDER


            a]       The criminal appeal is allowed.


            b]       The judgment of conviction passed by the Judge,

            Fast Track Court, Dharashiv, in Sessions Case No. 53 of

            2022, dated 31-12-2025, convicting the appellant for the

            commission of offences punishable under Sections 376

            and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set

            aside.


            c]       The appellant is acquitted of the commission of

            offences punishable under Sections 376 and 323 of the

            Indian Penal Code.


            d]       The appellant is to be released forthwith.


                                                                  21 of 22
                                    (22)                     29criapl39.26-1

                   e]     The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to

                   the appellant.


                   f]     The R & P be sent back to the trial court.




                                             [RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ]

VishalK/29criapl39.26-1




                                                                       22 of 22