Bombay HC upholds conviction of juvenile among four accused of gangrape

About the delay by the survivor in lodging an FIR, the court said, “The reluctance to go to the police can be because of society’s attitude towards such woman. It casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathy...”

Written by Sailee Dhayalkar | Mumbai | Published: April 8, 2018 12:38:40 pm
juvenile rape accused, gangrape victim, bombay high court, juvenile gangrape punishment, mumbai 2012 gangrape, indian express Bombay High Court (Express Photo by Pradeep Kocharekar/Files)

THE BOMBAY High Court on Friday upheld the conviction of four persons, including a juvenile, who had gangraped a woman traveling with a co-worker in 2012. About the delay by the survivor in lodging an FIR, the court said, “The reluctance to go to the police can be because of society’s attitude towards such woman. It casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathy…”

Justice A M Badar said, “Being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of gangrape on her, her non-approaching to police station immediately after the incident cannot be said to be a conduct, which is abnormal and throwing doubt on her version.”

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the four convicts, including a juvenile, challenging the conviction order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in Nashik. The sessions court had convicted Dattatraya Korde, Ganesh Pardeshi and Pintu Khoskar for gangrape and sentenced them to 10 years in jail.

According to the prosecution’s case, the woman and a co-worker had visited the Trimbakeshwar temple on March 15, 2012.

On their way back, they decided to visit another shrine in Bramhagiri and started climbing the mountain path. “About 2.30 pm, when they halted for lunch, the accused approached them and robbed Rs 7,200 and a cellphone from the woman’s co-worker. While two of the men held down the man, the other two dragged the woman to the nearby bushes and raped her. They threatened to throw her down from the mountain if she complained,” the prosecution told the court.

About the medical evidence, Justice Badar observed, “…non-finding of injuries on the body of the victim does not render her version improbable or untrustworthy. Even otherwise, it is well settled that when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence, then the ocular evidence if found to be trustworthy shall always prevail over the medical evidence.”