Order Below Exh.1 in Cri. B. A. No.527/2022
(CNR No. MHNS010020832022)
Ramu Mahadu Dhangare Vs. State.
Heard:
Learned Adv. Mr. Z. M. Avhad for the applicant.
Learned A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.
I. O. present.

1.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in Crime No.12/2021 registered at Police Station,
Dindori, Dist. Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections 364 &
307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the case of prosecution in
brief that the accused/applicant is the own (biological) father of the
09 year­old victim. He is not residing with the biological mother of
the victim. He resides with another woman and his three children
(including the victim). On the date of the incident, he took the minor
victim from her school to a remote part of a Jungle, strangulated her
with a rope and fled. He fled the spot thereafter and the complainant
who was near­by, came to her rescue (after hearing her shrieks), took
her to the hospital and lodged the FIR.
2.

Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that
there are several inconsistencies and loopholes in the charge­sheet.
There is no eye­witness to the incident. There are not many injuries
on the victim’s body. The FIR is false and has been lodged at the
instance of the biological mother of the victim. Investigation is over
and charge­sheet has been filed. No purpose will therefore be served
by keeping the applicant behind bars.
3.

Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the application
on the ground that perusal of the charge­sheet indicates prima­facie
case against the applicant. The victim has categorically narrated her
ordeal in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. as well.

There is no
reason for a child who is only 9 years old and an unknown
complainant to speak falsehood. The argument that there is no eye­
…2…

Cri. B. A. 527 of 2022
Order Exh. 1
witness to the incident is ludicrous to say the least in as much as the
victim as well as the complainant who was nearby has narrated the
incident. Minor inconsistencies or loopholes in the prosecution case
can be looked in to at the stage of final hearing after recording
evidence. Offence is punishable by up to imprisonment for life. The
victim was not in touch with her biological mother. Therefore, the
question of her lodging a false FIR also is not possible. Moreover, the
medical report clearly indicates injuries from strangulation and
indicates that there are marks on her neck (measurement of which
has also been mentioned in the medical report). She also has
sustained injury on her chin. The statement of victim’s real sister is
also on record which also corroborates her statement.
4.

I have perused the charge­sheet. Offence is serious and
condemnable in nature wherein the victim’s own father has tried to
take her life. Victim is merely 9 years old and instead of nurturing
and protecting his child, he has committed this assault on her. The
FIR lodged by the complainant and the statements of the victim and
her sister as well as the rope recovered from the spot coupled with
the medical certificate (which mentions the injuries on the victim’s
neck and chin) along with the other material indicate prima­facie case
against the applicant. As far as minor loopholes or inconsistencies are
concerned, they can be dealt with at the conclusion of the trial.
Offence is punishable by life imprisonment. In view of the foregoing
discussion, I am inclined to reject the application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
(Order is dictated & pronounced in open
court).
Digitally signed
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Nashik
02/06/2022
by MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.06.02
14:27:10 +0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge­2 and
Addl. Sessions Judge Nashik.