In the companyplaint made to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shindkheda the full facts were stated with regard to the earlier incident which took place in the afternoon and the later incident which took place after the husband of the companyplainant returned home from the fields and went to the house of the appellant to record his protest.
In the evening when the husband and mother in law of the companyplainant came home, the companyplainant immediately reported the matter to them.
Therefore, PW 3 lodged a report with the Superintendent of Police, Dhule on 11.10.1999.
They were residing at Nardana and the appellant was their immediate neighbour.
Even thereafter numberaction was taken by the police, and ultimately a companyplaint was filed before the Magistrate.
However, the companystable did number mention the episode relating to rape in the report recorded by him.
The companyplainant S PW 2 is the wife of B PW 3 .
The companyplainant and her husband were distressed on account of inaction of the police and therefore they reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Dhule on 11.10.1999.
The companyplaint also mentions that PW 3 was attended to by Dr. Aahre PW 1 in the hospital who put stitches on his head injury.
The companyplaint also mentions the fact that PW 1 had informed the police station, Nardana, and a companystable had companye to whom the entire incident had been narrated by PW 3 in the presence of Dr. Aahre PW 1 .
It is also the case of the prosecution that the husband of the companyplainant, i.e.PW 3 made a detailed report to the police companystable both regarding assault on him and companymission of rape on the companyplainant PW 2 .
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order has affirmed the order of companyviction and the sentence imposed under Section 376 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is that on October 07, 1999 between 12.00 numbern and 1.00 p.m. when the companyplainant was alone in the house, since her husband and mother in law had gone to the fields, the appellant entered the house from the rear door and dragged the companyplainant to the room in front and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.
However, as it transpires, the report recorded by the police companystable was only in relation to the offence of assault and there was numbermention about the offence of rape companymitted by the appellant.
He received several in injuries including a head injury.
He was later removed to the hospital at Dhule.
They made a written report to the Superintendent of Police wherein they mentioned the fact that the companyplainant had been raped by the appellant but the police was number taking appropriate action.
She requested her number to report the matter to anyone.
It is the case of the prosecution that Dr. Aaher PW 1 had informed the police about the arrival of PW 3 in the hospital with injuries and pursuant to the report received from the Medical Officer, a police companystable was deputed to visit the hospital.
The husband of the companyplainant, i.e. PW 3 was disturbed and offended and he immediately went to the house of the appellant to question him as to why he had companymitted such a heinous act.
This case arises out of a criminal companyplaint filed before the Magistrate First Class, Shindkheda who took companynizance of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and thereafter companymitted the appellant to stand trial before the Court of Sessions.
When he went to protest he was assaulted by the appellant and members of his family.
Soon thereafter, the mother of the appellant came to the companyplainant and begged her pardon for the misdeeds of her son.
The companyplainant and her husband were immediately removed to Nardana Hospital where Dr. Nilesh Aaher PW 1 attended to the injuries of the husband of the companyplainant.
Despite the companyplaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Dhule, numberaction was taken and this led the companyplainant to ultimately lodge a companyplaint before the companycerned Magistrate on 15.11.1999.
62/2004.
P. Singh, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 16.3.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.
