STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAVIKANT SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS.

                       [2011) 5 S.C.R. 1180


A                  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 v.
           RAVIKANT SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS.
            (Criminal Appeal Nos. 262-263 of 2005)
                           MAY 5, 2011
B
           [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

        PENAL CODE 1860:

c       ss.376,386 read with ss.148,, 4521149, 3661149, 3421149,
   3231149, 506 (2)1149 /PC and S. 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act-
   Allegation against main accused that he threatened the
  prosecutrix and her family members and married the
   prosecutrix and raped her - Other accused prosecuted for
   various other offences -Conviction by trial court-Acquittal
0
   by High Court holding that the father and the brother of
  prosecutrix acted as vakils of the prosecutrix and gave
   consent for the marriage and in consideration Mehar was
  given and there was a/so a valid Nikahnama - Held: The
  judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with and the
E findings given by it are perfectly justified - Judgment of High
   Court acquitting the accused persons is confirmed -Appeal
   against acquittal.

        Constitution of India, 1950:
F
       Article 136 - Appeal against acquittal - Held: Burden is
  on the prosecution to prove and justify its case that findings
  of High Court in acquitting the accused were perverse and
  were not justifiable and that the High Court miserably failed
G to do justice and inferences drawn by if are not possible or
  could not have been drawn in law - In the instant case, the
  prosecution has failed to discharge the burden - Penal Code,
  1860- ss. 376 and 386 read with ss. 148, 4521149, 3771149,
  2421149, 3231149, 506 (2)1149 IPC-Arms Act, 1951- s.25(1)
  (a) - Appeal.
H                              1180
      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVIKANT               1181
          SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS.
     Respondent No.1 was prosecuted for committing           A
offences punishable u/s. 376 and 386 IPC and s. 25(1 )(a)
of the Arms Act. He was also prosecuted with the other
accused-respondents for committing offences
punishable u/ss. 148, 452/149, 366/149, 342/149, 323/149,
506 (2)/149 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that the    B
prosecutrix was a student of 3rd year Computer
Engineering. Her father was a professor and after
returning to India, he started Hotel business, and her
brother was studying in a different city; that accused-
respondent No.1 (A-1), who was an M.P., came in close        c
contact with the family members of the prosecutrix and
helped them initially in construction of their house; that
he wanted to marry with the prosecutrix, but her father
opposed it: that on 5.5.1999, A-1, under threat, took the
prosecutrix and her whole family to Mumbai for getting
                                                             0
married with the prosecutrix, and for this purpose, he
converted himself into Islam; that Nikah was performed
on 6.5.1999 at Mumbai in presence of Kazi (PW-3) with the
help of accused-respondents No. 2 to 5; that after Nikah,
A-1 took the prosecutrix to various places and under
threat raped her from 9.5.1999 to 17 .5.1999. The            E
prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 5.6.1999. The trial court
convicted the accused persons of the offences charged.
But on appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction
and acquitted all the accused.
                                                             F
    In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was
contended for the accused- respondents that the High
Court considered the evidence of the prosecutrix, her
mother (PW-8) and the Kazi (PW-3) and there was nothing
on record to suggest that A-1 at any point of time G
coerced or threatened the prosecutrix or her family
members who were educated and well to do parents; that
the High Court went painstakingly through the whole list
of events from November, 1998 up to 5.6.1999, the day
                                                             H
    1182    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A when the FIR was lodged, and took a reasonable and
  plausible view of the evidence of the prosecutrix, her
  mother and the Kazi, and the silence on the part of the
  material witnesses and failure to explain as to why they
  did not report the matter to the police of all these events,
B created a doubt on the prosecution story, particularly,
  when the father and the brother of the prosecutrix were
  not examined as prosecution witnesses and they rather
  acted as vakils and gave consent for the marriage, and
  in consideration Mehar was given and the valid
c Nikahnama was on record.
        Dismissing the appeals, the court

       HELD: The impugned judgment cannot be faulted
  with. The findings given by the High Court are perfectly
D justifiable. The High Court has not erred in coming to the
  conclusion that the whole prosecution story was a myth.
  This is an appeal against the acquittal. The burden was
  on the prosecution to prove and justify its case that the
  findings of the High Court were perverse and were not
E justifiable and that the High Court has miserably failed to
  do justice and the findings and inferences drawn by it are
  not possible view or could not have been drawn in law.
  The prosecution has failed to discharge the burden. The.
  well-considered judgment of the High Court acquitting
F the accused persons is confirmed. [para 13-15] [1187-F-
  H; 1188-A-C]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 262-263 of 2005.

G       From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.2004 of the High
    Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 658 and 644 of 2000.

          Uday B. Dube, Sanjay V. Kharde and Asha Gopalan Nair
    for the Appellant.

H
       STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVIKANT                        1183
           SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS.

   Sushil Kamajkar and Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the                 A
Respondents. .

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     V.S.SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to
the judgment dated 10.9.2004 passed by the High Court of                B
Bombay in Criminal Appeal Nos. 658 and 644 of 2000 whereby
the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were set-
aside and appeals of the appellants were allowed and they
were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were convicted by the trial court for            C
the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452 r/w 149, 366
r/w 149, 342 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 506 (2) r/w 149, IPC.
Respondent No. 1/accused No. 1 Ravikant Shankarappa Patil
was also convicted for the offences punishable under Section
386 r/w Section 511, 376 IPC and 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.              D

     2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that prosecutrix
Fatima Sabin Nazir Ahmad Shaikh was studying in Ill year
Computer engineering at Walchand Institute of Technology .at
Solapur and had brilliant education record. Her father was a
professor. He left India for Libya in 1981 but returned to India
                                                                        E
in 1991 and started his hotel business. Her brother was also
getting education at Pune. Accused No. 1 contested election
from Solapur constituency and was elected Member of
Parliament. Due to political activities, accused No. 1 came in
close contact with the family members of the prosecutrix and            F
also helped her family initially for the construction of their house.

     3. It is further alleged that accused No. 1 developed fatal
attraction for the prosecutrix. After hearing the proposal from
accused No.1 for marriage with the prosecutirx, her. father got         G
annoyed with accused No.1 and asked him not to come to his
house. It is alleged that with his muscle and money power,
accused No. 1 started threatening the family members of the
prosecutrix. On 5.5.2009, accused No. 1, under threat, took the
prosecutrix and her whole family to Bombay for getting married          H
     1184    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 5 S.C.R.


 A with prosecutrix and for that purpose he also converted himself
   to Islam. Thereafter, Nikaah was performed on 6.5.1999 at
   Bombay in the presence of Kazi. In this nikaah, accused no. 1
   was helped by other accused persons who were his henchmen.
   Even after the nikaah, accused No. 1 is alleged to have moved
 B along with prosecutrix at various places including Khandala,
   Mysore and Hyderabad where according to the prosecutrix,
   under threat.she was raped by accused No. 1 from 9.5.1999
   to 17.5.1999. In short, the case of the prosecution appears to
   be that it was only with the muscle and money power that the
.c accused No. 1 forced the prosecutrix for nikaah and ravished
   her. The prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the accused
   persons on 5.6.1999.

       4. In support of its case, the prosecution, in all, examined
   12 witnesses including prosecutrix PW 2- Fatima Sabin Nazir
 D Ahmad Shaikh, Kazi PW-3 Hajij Yusuf Shaikh and her mother
   PW8- Rashida Begum Nazir Ahmed Shaikh.

          5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
     parties and gone through the record.
 E      6. We were taken through the evidence of PW1, PW3 and
   PW8 by Mr. U.B.Dube, learned counsel appearing for the State
   of Maharashtra who painstakingly developed the whole
   argument to the effect that the family of the prosecutrix was a
   middle class family. With the help of muscle and money power,
 F accused No. 1 used to threaten the prosecutrix and her family
   members. The whole family remained under the threat of the
   accused No. 1 and the nikaah was performed forcibly though
   the prosecutrix had not consented for it. Learned counsel,
   therefore, argued that it is established law that when the
 G prosecutrix herself alleges the rape and other ill treatments by
   accused No. 1, her evidence was sufficient enough to convict
   the accused persons and rightly believed to be true by the trial
   court and, therefore, the High Court should not have upset the
   conviction awarded by the trial ·court.
 H
    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVIKANT         1185
SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

      7. Mr. Dube submitted that in committing the crime, A
accused No. 1 was helped by all the other accused persons
who were his henchmen. He also stated that accused No. 1
was an influential political leader having been once elected as
a Member of Parliament and once as a Member of Legislative
Assembly of Karnataka. He, therefore, pointed out that accused . B
No. 1 along with his henchmen overawed the family of the
prosecutrix and also obtained forceful consent from the
prosecutrix for their nikaah. He, further argues that there was
no valid nikaah and that the act of the accused No. 1 in
ravishing the prosecutirx would amount to rape under Section c
376 IPC. He also argued that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken
away from the custody of her parents. The conviction and
sentence ordered by the Sessions court for the various offences
including criminal intimidation and causing injuries were well
justified.
                                                                 D
     8. Mr. Sushi! Karanjkar, learned counsel for the respondent
pointed out that the High Court has very painstakingly gone
through the whole list of events from November, 1998 right up
to 5.6.1999, the day when the first information report was
lodged by the prosecutrix. Mr. Karanjkar, pointed out that even    E
though it was alleged that because of his desire to marry with
the prosecutrix as he was not happy with his wife, accused No.
 1 overawed the family with the revolver, but the incident was
never reported to the police. Mr. Karanjkar further pointed out
that even though in the Ramzaan Eid festival in January, 1999,     F
when the prosecutrix and her family members had shifted to new
house at Jule, Solapur, accused No. 1 came there and
threatened them to pay Rs. 12,00,000/-, this matter was also
not reported to the police. Learned counsel further argues that
in the last week of April, 1999 when accused No. 1 again came      G
to the residence of the prosecutrix and started threatening and
insisted for payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- and also insisted the
 prosecutrix to marry him, no report to that effect was lodged.
 Likewise, the learned counsel pointed out the that the event of
5.5.1999 was not reported to the police when the prosecutrix       H
    1186    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A and her family was made to travel to Bombay in a car belonging
  to accused No. 1 for the purpose of nikaah. Learned counsel
  points out that for the purpose of nikaah, accused No. 1
  converted himself to lslaam and there was a kazi who got the
  nikaah performed between accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix.
B Thereafter, learned counsel relied on all the documents
  including the affidavit filed by the accused No. 1 to the effect
  that he had converted himself into lslaam as also the oral
  evidence of the Kazi - PW3. Therefore, there was no question
  of any undue influence or coercion having been exercised by
c or at the instance of accused No. 1.
       9. Mr. Karanjkar also points out that for the purpose of this
  nikaah, the rest of family members including the father and
  mother of the prosecutrix travelled by train and accompanied
  accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix to the house of Shakil
D Noorani in Bombay where nikaah was performed. Learned
  counsel further points out that there was no question of this
  marriage having been performed under the undue influence,
  coercion, threat or fraud. Learned counsel points out that after
  the marriage, accused No. 1 and the prosecutrix went to a
E resort in Khandala and thereafter, they also went to Hyderabad,
  Mysore etc. including the Vrindavan gardens where accused
  No. 1 is alleged to have taken the photographs of the
  prosecutrix.

F      10. Mr. Karanjkar further points out that the High Court has
  threadbare appreciated the evidence of PW2, her mother PW8,
  Kazi- PW 3 and other prosecution witnesses. There is nothing
  on record to suggest that accused No. 1, at any point of time,
  coerced or threatened the prosecutrix and her family members.
  Mr. Karanjkar wonders that the educated family and well to do
G parents do not find time to report the serious matter concerning
  their daughter to the police. He further supports the finding of
  the High Court to the effect that though accused No. 1 had
  ravished the prosecutrix in her own house in a bed room when
  the other family members were also present, but none of them
H
    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. RAVIKANT          1187
SHANKARAPPA PATIL & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

came forward to the rescue of the prosecutrix despite her cries        A
for help and lodged any report. Learned counsel points out a
very substantial discrepancy in the prosecution case that the
father and brother of the prosecutrix,who were professor and
student, have not been .examined as prosecution witnesses.
Learned counsel further points out that the High Court has taken       B
a reasonable and plausible view of the evidence of PWs 1, 3
and 8 and silence on the part of the material witnesses and
failure to explain as to why they did not report the matter to the
police of all these events creates a doubt on the prosecution
story.                                                                 c
     11. Mr. Dube, learned counsel appearing for the State was
not in a position to justify the evidence of Kazi PW 3,
particularly, that he did not see happiness on the face of the
bride when he performed the nikaah.
                                                                       D
     12. Mr. Karanjkar argued that the High Court has rightly
concluded that from the solitary statement of PW3 that he did
not see happiness on the face of bride, no inference can be
drawn that it was a forced nikaah. It is also stated that the father
and the brother of the prosecutrix acted as vakils of the              E
prosecutrix and also gave consent for the marriage and in_
consideration, Mehar of Rs. 25,0000/- was given. There is also
a valid nikaahnama on record.

      13. We have gone through the impugned judgment very
carefully. We find that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted        F
with. The findings given by the High Court are perfectly
justifiable. The High Court has not erred in coming to the
conclusion that the whole prosecution story was a myth.
Undoubtedly, the whole matter is unfortunate. However, this is
an appeal against the acquittal. The burden was on the                 G
prosecution to prove and justify its contention that the findings
of the High Court were perverse and were not justifiable and
in this case, the High Court has miserably failed to do justice
and the findings and inferences drawn by it are not possible
                                                                       H
    1188       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A view or could not not have been drawn in law. The prosecution
  has failed to convince us.

         14. Once the appeal fails against the main accused, there
    remains nothing against the other accused. Mr. Dube, did not
    seriously challenge their acquittal. The evidence also does not
8
    suggest any criminal activity on their part. The appeal against
    their acquittal has to necessarily fail.

           15. This being the position, we are not inclined to interfere
  with the well-considered judgment of the High Court. The
C impugned judgment of the High Court, acquitting the accused
  persons, is confirmed. The appeals are, accordingly,
  dismissed.

    R.P.                                          Appeals dismissed.