Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 603
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No………… of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11566 of
2024)
KESHAV S/O LAXMAN RUPNAR & ANR.
…APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
…RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The accused, appellants No. 1 and 2 were alleged to
have committed rape on PWs 2 and 3. The appellants
were arrayed along with two others, before the Trial
Court, all of whom stood convicted; the appellants for
abduction and rape while the other two were
convicted for abduction alone. Two set of appeals
were filed, one by the appellants herein and another
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.30
16:35:38 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
by A3 & A4, the latter of which was allowed acquitting
A3 and A4.
3. We heard Mr. Sharangauda Patil, learned
Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, learned Counsel for the
respondent - State.
4. The prosecution story was that PWs 2 and 3,
wives of siblings, had a quarrel with their
mother-in-law and left their matrimonial home,
on the pretext of answering the call of nature.
The two year old son of PW3 was also taken with
them. PWs 2 and 3 with an intention to go to
Kurla, boarded a tempo in which accused No.1 to
4 were travelling. The accused promised to take
them to Kurla without charging any fare and
when they reached Bodka, PW4 who was also in
the tempo alighted and PWs2 and 3 continued in
the vehicle. The accused, however, refused to
stop the vehicle at Kurla and went forward,
ignoring the protests made by PWs 2 & 3. PWs 2
Page 2 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
and 3 raised a hue and cry when they were
threatened with a knife. They were taken to a
field and both PWs 2 and 3 were raped by A1
and A2, one after the other. PW2 deposed that
A3 and A4 aided A1 and A2, whereas PW3 said
that when the vehicle was stopped beyond Kurla
A3 and A4 left. This contradiction in testimony
led to the acquittal of A3 and A4.
5. The continued narration of PWs 2 and 3 was that
after raping them A1 and A2 dropped them at
Gangakhed from where they proceeded to
Parbhani where they stayed for about 15 days.
The victims left their matrimonial home on
04.06.2000 and later after PW2's father brought
them back to their village an FIR was registered
on 20.06.2000. The Trial Court convicted the
accused solely on the testimony of the victims,
which was found to be believable; affirmed as
mutually corroborated by the High Court. It is
the uninspiring testimony of PWs 2 and 3 and
Page 3 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
the unbelievable story set up, which is projected
to assail the order of conviction.
6. PW 1 was the father of PW 2 who was also the
first informant. PW1 specifically testified that on
the missing of the victims, along with the son of
one of them, a complaint was registered with
the police, which was marked as Exb.33. His
testimony was that it was for the first time that
the victims left their matrimonial home without
informing their husbands and on inquiry the
victims told that they were planning to go to
their parental home due to quarrel with their
mother-in-law. The mother-in-law or their
husbands were not examined before Court to
substantiate that they had left their marital
home.
7. PW2 and PW3, no doubt spoke in tandem about
their boarding the tempo on the promise of the
accused to drop them at Kurla, the accused
having not stopped the vehicle at Kurla,
Page 4 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
threatening them when they raised a hue and
cry, and later raping them at a deserted field. It
is very pertinent that the two-year old boy was
with the victims at the time when the crime was
alleged to have been committed, but there is
nothing stated about his whereabouts when the
two accused were simultaneously but separately
forcefully having sexual intercourse with the
victims.
8. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court placed
heavy reliance on the testimony of PW4 who
saw the victims along with the child travelling in
the tempo. Strangely, PW 4 did not identify
either of the accused as having travelled in the
tempo. PW3 has stated that they planned to go
to Kurla to stay with the sister of PW 2 in which
event in all probability, after the atrocity
committed on them, they would have gone to
the sister of PW 2. For arguments sake we would
take it that the shame caused, forced them to go
to Parbhani. It is the testimony of PW 2 in her
Page 5 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
chief-examination that they hired a room at
Parbhani on rent basis and stayed there for 15
days. In cross-examination she also stated that
she had sold a 'natni' to obtain money. Neither
the lodge was identified or anybody examined to
prove their residence nor any investigation
conducted regarding the sale of 'natni' . More
interesting is the fact that in cross-examination
PW2 stated that in Parbhani they stayed with a
‘cousin-aunt’ to whom they have not disclosed
the incident of rape. The specific contention was
that they stayed for about 14 days with the
‘cousin-aunt’ and for one day with another lady
and then that lady took her to the residence of
her ‘cousin-aunt’ where they stayed for 14 days.
PW 3 in her cross-examination stated that at
Parbhani they stayed in the residence of an
unknown lady for four to five days and
thereafter with the relative of PW2. PW3 speaks
of having told the lady that they left their
matrimonial home due to the ill-treatment of
Page 6 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
their husbands and in-laws. Not only were
contradictory versions given about their stay in
Parbhani, nobody was examined to substantiate
the stay at Parbhani for 15 days.
1
9. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , held that
even without any corroboration, if the evidence
of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it can be
relied on and can also be the sole ground for
conviction. However, if it is difficult to place
implicit reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix, then the Court has to look for
evidence to lend assurance to her testimony
which would be short of corroboration required
in the case. The testimony of the prosecutrix
must be appreciated in the background of the
entire case, was the finding. Raju v. State of
2
M.P. , while reiterating the above principle also
cautioned that while rape causes the greatest
distress and humiliation, a false allegation of
rape also can cause equal distress, humiliation
1 (1996) 2 SCC 384
2 (2008) 15 SCC 133
Page 7 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
and damage to the accused as well. The Court
should be equally careful in protecting the
accused from a false implication. While applying
the broad principle that an injured witness,
whose presence cannot be doubted, as she
would ordinarily not lie, still there is no
presumption or any basis for assuming that the
statement of such a witness is always correct or
without any embellishments.
10. Looking at the totality of the circumstances
and the entire story as narrated by the victims,
PW 2 and PW3, we find difficulty in accepting
their testimony to be one having sterling quality.
We cannot also say that the story as narrated by
the victims inspires confidence. Looking for
assurance, we find the entire narration to be
unbelievable and not substantiated on its finer
details. As we noticed, nobody is examined from
the matrimonial house to speak on the victims
having left their residence without informing
their in-laws or their husbands. PW 4, as we
Page 8 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
noticed only speaks of having seen the victims
along with the child travelling in a tempo, but he
does not speak of the accused travelling along
with them. Neither did he identify the accused in
the dock nor was an attempt made by the
prosecution to carry out such an identification, in
Court. PWs 2 and 3 identified the accused and
there was also a test identification parade
carried out. However, their story of having been
taken past Kurla and the rape in the deserted
field does not inspire confidence. Likewise, the
subsequent stay in Parbhani, that too for 15
days, is full of inconsistencies and police also did
not carry out any investigation as to the place at
which the victims stayed along with the child of
two years.
11. Further we also looked at the evidence of
PW 9, the Doctor, who examined the victims,
who deposed that he saw no evidence of a
forceful sexual intercourse. We are conscious of
the fact that the medical examination was done
Page 9 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
after 15 days of the alleged crime. But the
Doctor deposes that if there was forceful sexual
intercourse, that too repeated, as evident from
the testimony, there would be some injuries
which may not be detected after about one or
one and a half months. The medical
examination was within that period.
12. In the totality of the circumstances, we are
unable to place any reliance on the oral
testimony of PWs 2 and 3; though they spoke in
tandem about the crime. The story put up by the
prosecution as spoken of by PWs 2 and 3 are full
of holes and it raises a grave suspicion in our
minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt.
13. The Appeal stands allowed acquitting the
accused. The judgment of High Court dated
02.07.2024 and the Trial Court dated 02.07.2003
are hereby set aside. The accused if in custody
shall be released forthwith, if they are not
Page 10 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
wanted in any other case and if they are on bail,
their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025.
Page 11 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
ITEM NO.1504 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s). 11566/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 02-07-2024 in CRLA No. 509/2003 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad]
KESHAV & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
Date : 30-04-2025 This petition was called on for
pronouncement of Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR
Mr. Sharangouda Patil, Adv.
Mr. Anoop Raj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced
the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and His
Lordship.
Leave granted.
Page 12 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
The operative portion of the Judgment reads as
follows :-
“13. The Appeal stands allowed
acquitting the accused. The
judgment of High Court dated
02.07.2024 and the Trial Court
dated 02.07.2003 are hereby set
aside. The accused if in custody
shall be released forthwith, if
they are not wanted in any other
case and if they are on bail,
their bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
14. Pending interlocutory
application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of.”
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the
file)
Page 13 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No………… of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.11566 of
2024)
KESHAV S/O LAXMAN RUPNAR & ANR.
…APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
…RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The accused, appellants No. 1 and 2 were alleged to
have committed rape on PWs 2 and 3. The appellants
were arrayed along with two others, before the Trial
Court, all of whom stood convicted; the appellants for
abduction and rape while the other two were
convicted for abduction alone. Two set of appeals
were filed, one by the appellants herein and another
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.04.30
16:35:38 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
by A3 & A4, the latter of which was allowed acquitting
A3 and A4.
3. We heard Mr. Sharangauda Patil, learned
Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, learned Counsel for the
respondent - State.
4. The prosecution story was that PWs 2 and 3,
wives of siblings, had a quarrel with their
mother-in-law and left their matrimonial home,
on the pretext of answering the call of nature.
The two year old son of PW3 was also taken with
them. PWs 2 and 3 with an intention to go to
Kurla, boarded a tempo in which accused No.1 to
4 were travelling. The accused promised to take
them to Kurla without charging any fare and
when they reached Bodka, PW4 who was also in
the tempo alighted and PWs2 and 3 continued in
the vehicle. The accused, however, refused to
stop the vehicle at Kurla and went forward,
ignoring the protests made by PWs 2 & 3. PWs 2
Page 2 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
and 3 raised a hue and cry when they were
threatened with a knife. They were taken to a
field and both PWs 2 and 3 were raped by A1
and A2, one after the other. PW2 deposed that
A3 and A4 aided A1 and A2, whereas PW3 said
that when the vehicle was stopped beyond Kurla
A3 and A4 left. This contradiction in testimony
led to the acquittal of A3 and A4.
5. The continued narration of PWs 2 and 3 was that
after raping them A1 and A2 dropped them at
Gangakhed from where they proceeded to
Parbhani where they stayed for about 15 days.
The victims left their matrimonial home on
04.06.2000 and later after PW2's father brought
them back to their village an FIR was registered
on 20.06.2000. The Trial Court convicted the
accused solely on the testimony of the victims,
which was found to be believable; affirmed as
mutually corroborated by the High Court. It is
the uninspiring testimony of PWs 2 and 3 and
Page 3 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
the unbelievable story set up, which is projected
to assail the order of conviction.
6. PW 1 was the father of PW 2 who was also the
first informant. PW1 specifically testified that on
the missing of the victims, along with the son of
one of them, a complaint was registered with
the police, which was marked as Exb.33. His
testimony was that it was for the first time that
the victims left their matrimonial home without
informing their husbands and on inquiry the
victims told that they were planning to go to
their parental home due to quarrel with their
mother-in-law. The mother-in-law or their
husbands were not examined before Court to
substantiate that they had left their marital
home.
7. PW2 and PW3, no doubt spoke in tandem about
their boarding the tempo on the promise of the
accused to drop them at Kurla, the accused
having not stopped the vehicle at Kurla,
Page 4 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
threatening them when they raised a hue and
cry, and later raping them at a deserted field. It
is very pertinent that the two-year old boy was
with the victims at the time when the crime was
alleged to have been committed, but there is
nothing stated about his whereabouts when the
two accused were simultaneously but separately
forcefully having sexual intercourse with the
victims.
8. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court placed
heavy reliance on the testimony of PW4 who
saw the victims along with the child travelling in
the tempo. Strangely, PW 4 did not identify
either of the accused as having travelled in the
tempo. PW3 has stated that they planned to go
to Kurla to stay with the sister of PW 2 in which
event in all probability, after the atrocity
committed on them, they would have gone to
the sister of PW 2. For arguments sake we would
take it that the shame caused, forced them to go
to Parbhani. It is the testimony of PW 2 in her
Page 5 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
chief-examination that they hired a room at
Parbhani on rent basis and stayed there for 15
days. In cross-examination she also stated that
she had sold a 'natni' to obtain money. Neither
the lodge was identified or anybody examined to
prove their residence nor any investigation
conducted regarding the sale of 'natni' . More
interesting is the fact that in cross-examination
PW2 stated that in Parbhani they stayed with a
‘cousin-aunt’ to whom they have not disclosed
the incident of rape. The specific contention was
that they stayed for about 14 days with the
‘cousin-aunt’ and for one day with another lady
and then that lady took her to the residence of
her ‘cousin-aunt’ where they stayed for 14 days.
PW 3 in her cross-examination stated that at
Parbhani they stayed in the residence of an
unknown lady for four to five days and
thereafter with the relative of PW2. PW3 speaks
of having told the lady that they left their
matrimonial home due to the ill-treatment of
Page 6 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
their husbands and in-laws. Not only were
contradictory versions given about their stay in
Parbhani, nobody was examined to substantiate
the stay at Parbhani for 15 days.
1
9. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , held that
even without any corroboration, if the evidence
of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it can be
relied on and can also be the sole ground for
conviction. However, if it is difficult to place
implicit reliance on the testimony of the
prosecutrix, then the Court has to look for
evidence to lend assurance to her testimony
which would be short of corroboration required
in the case. The testimony of the prosecutrix
must be appreciated in the background of the
entire case, was the finding. Raju v. State of
2
M.P. , while reiterating the above principle also
cautioned that while rape causes the greatest
distress and humiliation, a false allegation of
rape also can cause equal distress, humiliation
1 (1996) 2 SCC 384
2 (2008) 15 SCC 133
Page 7 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
and damage to the accused as well. The Court
should be equally careful in protecting the
accused from a false implication. While applying
the broad principle that an injured witness,
whose presence cannot be doubted, as she
would ordinarily not lie, still there is no
presumption or any basis for assuming that the
statement of such a witness is always correct or
without any embellishments.
10. Looking at the totality of the circumstances
and the entire story as narrated by the victims,
PW 2 and PW3, we find difficulty in accepting
their testimony to be one having sterling quality.
We cannot also say that the story as narrated by
the victims inspires confidence. Looking for
assurance, we find the entire narration to be
unbelievable and not substantiated on its finer
details. As we noticed, nobody is examined from
the matrimonial house to speak on the victims
having left their residence without informing
their in-laws or their husbands. PW 4, as we
Page 8 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
noticed only speaks of having seen the victims
along with the child travelling in a tempo, but he
does not speak of the accused travelling along
with them. Neither did he identify the accused in
the dock nor was an attempt made by the
prosecution to carry out such an identification, in
Court. PWs 2 and 3 identified the accused and
there was also a test identification parade
carried out. However, their story of having been
taken past Kurla and the rape in the deserted
field does not inspire confidence. Likewise, the
subsequent stay in Parbhani, that too for 15
days, is full of inconsistencies and police also did
not carry out any investigation as to the place at
which the victims stayed along with the child of
two years.
11. Further we also looked at the evidence of
PW 9, the Doctor, who examined the victims,
who deposed that he saw no evidence of a
forceful sexual intercourse. We are conscious of
the fact that the medical examination was done
Page 9 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
after 15 days of the alleged crime. But the
Doctor deposes that if there was forceful sexual
intercourse, that too repeated, as evident from
the testimony, there would be some injuries
which may not be detected after about one or
one and a half months. The medical
examination was within that period.
12. In the totality of the circumstances, we are
unable to place any reliance on the oral
testimony of PWs 2 and 3; though they spoke in
tandem about the crime. The story put up by the
prosecution as spoken of by PWs 2 and 3 are full
of holes and it raises a grave suspicion in our
minds which qualifies as reasonable doubt.
13. The Appeal stands allowed acquitting the
accused. The judgment of High Court dated
02.07.2024 and the Trial Court dated 02.07.2003
are hereby set aside. The accused if in custody
shall be released forthwith, if they are not
Page 10 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
wanted in any other case and if they are on bail,
their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2025.
Page 11 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
ITEM NO.1504 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s). 11566/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 02-07-2024 in CRLA No. 509/2003 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad]
KESHAV & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
Date : 30-04-2025 This petition was called on for
pronouncement of Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR
Mr. Sharangouda Patil, Adv.
Mr. Anoop Raj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran pronounced
the non-reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and His
Lordship.
Leave granted.
Page 12 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024
The operative portion of the Judgment reads as
follows :-
“13. The Appeal stands allowed
acquitting the accused. The
judgment of High Court dated
02.07.2024 and the Trial Court
dated 02.07.2003 are hereby set
aside. The accused if in custody
shall be released forthwith, if
they are not wanted in any other
case and if they are on bail,
their bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
14. Pending interlocutory
application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of.”
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the
file)
Page 13 of 13
SLP (Crl.) No. 11566 of 2024