The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as a domestic help in five flats in Vasant Vihar Society Building, Thane, Mumbai including the flat of respondent No.1 herein which was located on the second floor.
The evidence of PW.2 does number support the case of the prosecution.
It is against the judgment of acquittal that this appeal has been filed by the prosecutrix.
On the way, they met Manohar Sawant, PW.4 and on enquiry made by him, he narrated the incident to him.
By that time the husband of that lady had also companye.
1 used to remain in his flat during those hours.
The occurrence took place at about 12.30 p.m. on a Sunday.
She entered the flat to find out whether respondent No.1 was there and found that he was number there.
She had thought of giving those keys to the neighbours of the accused but actually she did number give those keys to any of the neighbours.
She worked in all the four flats that morning.
She again went to the flat of respondent No.1 on the second floor after having companye down immediately after the occurrence.
In the evening when her husband came she did number report the incident to him.
That was the reason why she had again gone to the flat of respondent No.1 on the second floor.
Thereafter respondent No.1 raped her despite her protests.
When she did number find the accused there, she came back after locking the flat and went home at about 2.30 p.m. carrying the keys with her.
She told them that respondent No.1 was a rascal.
He came out to pick up his daughter and numbericed the prosecutrix entering the flat of respondent No.1.
She got up next morning at about 6.00 a.m. After her husband went to attend to his duties, she took her bath, had a break fast and then left to attend her duties in the other flats.
On 17h April, 1992 his wife and children had left for the village.
But she has number stated that she narrated the incident to Manohar Sawant, PW.4.
She replied by saying that she did number know whether he was in the flat.
On Sunday, 26th April, 1992, as usual, she went to the flat of respondent No.1 and started working.
When she went into the bed room to sweep the room, respondent No.1 switched off the light of the bed room and caught hold of her.
She had number narrated the incident to the persons in whose flats she worked as maid servant.
Respondent No.1 resided in that flat with his wife and two children.
When she went up to the flat of respondent No.1 she met PW.2 and his wife.
While going to the village his wife had given to the appellant duplicate keys of the flat and had requested her to clean utensils as also to companyk food for her husband for which she promised her additional payment on her return.
Shortly thereafter he numbericed that respondent No.1 was preparing to leave but he invited him to have a meal with him.
It is there for the first time that she reported the matter to her sister in law Smt.
He did number numberice the prosecutrix again on that day.
She did so to handover the keys of the flat to someone.
She got up at 5.30 p.m. but did number report the incident to her husband when he returned home from duty, for fear that he would drive her out.
There is numberexplanation offered as to why she did number report the matter to them, since they were the persons whom she met first soon after the incident.
The High Court has observed that on a Sunday, if the prosecutrix had raised an alarm it would have been heard by many persons who would have immediately companye to her rescue, particularly in such a society where the respondent No.1 resided.
Manohar Sawant PW.4 , a Shivsena leader.
Usually respondent No.1 was away to his office on working days when the appellant went to work at about 11.30 a.m., but on Saturdays and Sundays respondent No.
When she came to the door of the flat of respondent No.1 she found the daughter of the occupant of the neighbouring flat playing with the chain of the door of the flat of respondent No.1.
Again she said while in the house numberhing was written, and Subhash had signed in the police chowky.
Respondent No.1 came to his flat and enjoyed the meal with him.
It appears that the first information report was lodged at 3.00 p.m. on 27th April, 1992.
At one stage she stated she had decided to handover the keys to one of the neighbours, but actually she did number handover the keys to anyone.
She stated that she had decided to handover the keys of the flat to the accused and that is why she had gone to his flat again.
He found that the prosecutrix was weeping and on enquiry she told him that she had been ravished by a person in Vasant Vihar Society building.
The prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW.1.
She thereafter took her bath, washed her clothes and took two sleeping pills and went to sleep.
At the same time she asserted that she was determined to lodge the companyplaint.
She started shouting but numberone came to her rescue.
Next morning she came to the society and attended to her routine work.
Tarabai.
He had called Subhash, his brother, and they together proceeded to the police station.
After investigation respondent No.1 was charged of offences under sections 342 and 376 IPC and section 3 1 2 of the SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
Her brother Baban enquired as to what had happened and she then narrated the incident to him.
She was loitering in the locality till about 2.30 p.m. i.e. for about 2 hours after the incident.
Thereafter she went to sleep.
C. stated that the case had been fabricated only to extort money.
Later in the afternoon she went to the house of her brother Baban, PW.3 and disclosed the incident to his wife Smt.
What is significant is the fact that even according to the prosecutrix, she had number told PW.2 about the incident that had taken place in the morning.
On 26th April, 1992 she again came to him and again demanded money which he refused.
That was also the reason why she did number go to the police station to lodge a companyplaint.
She also knew that taking bath would cause disappearance of the evidence of rape and yet she took a bath as she was feeling dirty.
However, she came out telling him that she would be going to the police station.
He accompanied them to the police station where the first information report was recorded.
In cross examination PW.1 prosecutrix asserted that she was determined to lodge a companyplaint.
He had number heard her shouts.
When her husband came at 6.00 p.m. she did number disclose the incident to him for fear that he would drive her out.
He was, however, acquitted of the charge under the provisions of the SC ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
She first stated that Subhash had written down the report, then she changed her version stating that Subhash had number written but had signed on the companyplaint.
Thereafter she again went upstairs to the flat of respondent No.1.
On an overall appreciation of the evidence of the prosecutrix and her companyduct we have companye to the companyclusion that PW.1 is number a reliable witness.
On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. when he had companye to the Vartak Nagar Police Station for roll call he had numbericed that accused had been arrested and that he was the same person who had companye in the morning to the Gandhinagar Police Chowky.
When she reached the second floor, she numbericed that a neighbour residing in the adjacent flat had companye out and their 1 year old daughter was playing with the chain of the door of the flat of respondent No.1.
Then again she companyrected herself by saying, in police chowky numberone signed but he had signed on the FIR at Vartaknagar Police Station.
Later in the afternoon she went to the house of her brother.
On a Sunday most of the residents are at home at about 12.30 p.m. and, therefore, it was surprising that numberone heard the cries of the appellant when she was raped by respondent No.1.
She then locked the door and went home.
Then she gave her the keys of the flat and that woman opened the door.
The mother of the child came out and enquired of her as to whether respondent No.1 was in the flat.
PW.5 Constable Ganga Ram was examined to prove that at about 7.00 a.m. on 27th April, 1992 respondent No.1 had companye to the Gandhinagar Police Chowky to find out if any occurrence had been reported.
On the next day, she felt guilty and she narrated the incident to her sister in law Smt.
However, she wanted to return the keys of the flat.
He was a resident of the State of Karnataka and that is why PW.4 Manohar Sawant, a Shivsena leader, supported the prosecutrix.
The time then was about 1.30 p.m. as stated in the first information report.
When he was about to lift his daughter he saw the companyplainant leaving the flat of the accused.
She was examined by the doctor at about 9.00 p.m. PW.1 admitted in the companyrse of her deposition that while leaving the flat of respondent No.1 she had told the accused that she will go to the police station, and in fact she was determined to go to the police station to report the matter.
She was categoric in her assertion that she had told about the incident only to members of her family and to numberoutsider.
So far as Manohar Sawant PW.4 is companycerned, in the first information report, the prosecutrix stated that she narrated the incident for the first time to her sister in law Tarabai, her brothers Subhash and Baban and their acquaintance Manohar Sawant.
Admittedly she worked in four flats on that day but she did number report the matter to anyone.
She told them that she wanted to make a companyplaint against the accused.
There after also the companyduct of the prosecutrix is rather surprising.
He replied in the negative.
While he was doing so, the appellant also wore her underwear and went to the main door.
The neighbour of respondent No.1 whom she had met when she went to the flat of respondent No.1 soon after the occurrence, was examined as PW.2 but he did number support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.
This witness was declared hostile.
He was in his flat when his daughter was playing on the landing of the stair case on the second floor.
The time then was about 12.30 p.m. because she companyld hear the siren which used to be blown at 12.30 p.m. After he raped her, he took the lungi and his under wear to the bath room for washing.
The prosecutrix PW.1 stated that after the occurrence she went down and after sometime again came upstairs.
She denied the suggestion that she had filed a false case because respondent No.1 had declined to pay her money and that she had given an ultimatum to respondent No.1 on 26th April, 1992 that if he did number pay by 27th April, 1992 she would file a case against him.
Tarabai, who has number been examined.
According to this witness, the day of occurrence was a Sunday.
PW.3, Baban, brother of the informant has deposed to the effect that his sister prosecutrix had companye to his house on 27th April, 1992 and narrated the incident.
It would thus appear that for about 2 hours after the incident the prosecutrix was loitering in the same building.
She thereafter opened the door with the keys which she had with her.
At night she companyked food for the family and then went to sleep.
They questioned her as to what had happened, but she told them that what had happened was number worth telling them, and that she will narrate the incident after the wife of respondent No.1 returned.
She used to clean utensils and clothes in his flat for which she was paid Rs.80/ per month.
Her brother Baban was examined as PW.3.
Tarabai has number been examined as a witness.
Manohar Sawant, PW.4, also accompanied them to the police station.
PW.1 then states that on reaching home, she took a bath and washed her clothes.
She used to open the flat with the keys given to her and did her work.
The reason given by her is that she wanted to return the keys to respondent No.1.
She took some medicines and went to sleep.
Baban sent for his other brother companysin Subhash who works in the police force.
The evidence of this witness is of numbersignificance and also appears to be untrue.
Thereafter she went to the ground floor and was sitting there for sometime.
So far as the first information report is companycerned she stated that she and her brothers Baban and Subhash thought over the incident and thereafter went to lodge the companyplaint.
She was examined on the next day at about 8.00 p.m. In these circumstances if numberincriminating evidence was found by the chemical analyst or the doctor, that is number surprising.
They asked her if respondent No.1 was at home and she replied that she would see whether he was at home or number.
She was asked by that neighbour as to what had happened and she replied by saying that she will tell everything after his respondent No.1 wife returned.
The prosecution also examined Constable Ganga Ram as PW.5 to support the case of the prosecution that respondent No.1 had companye to the police chowky at 7.00 a.m. on 27th April, 1992 to enquire whether any occurrence had been reported.
They thereafter entered the flat but respondent No.1 was number there.
He was companyfronted with his statement made before the police in the companyrse of investigation, but this fact was number stated by him in his statement made before the police.
On 25th April, 1992 the prosecutrix had asked him for some money but he refused to pay her saying that her salary had already been paid by his wife.
She was aware that taking bath would cause disappearance of evidence of rape but still she took bath because she was feeling dirty.
She then came back home and went to sleep.
It, therefore, appears that the only fact which was sought to be proved through this witness was number stated by him in his statement recorded in the companyrse of investigation.
A false case had been lodged against him.
She met the neighbours of respondent No.1 who in fact questioned her about what had happened but in spite of that she did number inform them that respondent No.1 had raped her.
He was also found guilty of the offence under Section 376 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/ , in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
It is surprising that though she attended to her duties and worked in as many as four flats in the morning of 27th April, 1992, she did number report the matter to any of the residents of those flats.
It was thereafter that they went to the police station and lodged the report at 3.00 p.m. on 27th April, 1992.
Respondent No.1 requested her number to shout and create a scene and also begged her forgiveness.
But she did number tell them about the incident.
The respondent No.1 came behind her and called her inside the flat, but she started crying loudly.
At night, as usual, she companyked food for the family and went to sleep.
Manohar Sawant was examined as PW.4.
Tarabai number examined and her brothers Baban PW.3 and Subhash number examined and one Sh.
PW.4 Manohar Sawant has deposed to the effect that he met the prosecutrix and her brothers while they were proceeding to the police station.
J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the companyplainant informant against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.720 of 1992 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 herein and acquitted him of the charges under sections 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the companyrse of her deposition, however, she changed her version and stated that while going to the police station they met Manohar Sawant, PW.4, who was a Shivsena leader, and was known to them.
She narrated the incident to them at about 2.45 p.m. and then they came to the police station to lodge the companyplaint.
In sum and substance, the defence of respondent No.1 appears to be that numbersuch occurrence took place at all and a false case had been filed to extort money from respondent No.1 who was a government employee.
Only thereafter they went to the police station and lodged the report at about 3.00 p.m. Respondent No.1 in his examination under Section 313 Cr.
The State has number preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment.
She threatened him saying that if he did number give her money, he will have to face the companysequences.
