Case Name: Bhalchandra Shankar Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: High Court of Bombay
Judge: M.M. SATHAYE, J.
Date of Judgment: December 5, 2024
Facts:
The Applicant/Appellant, Bhalchandra Shankar Mhatre, was convicted on September 13, 2022, for offenses under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(l) & 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code, 1860. He
was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
The conviction stems from an incident in January 2017, where the Applicant is alleged to have raped the victim, a mentally challenged woman who assisted her mother, a maid in the Applicant’s house. The victim became pregnant as a result of the assault. The Applicant, his wife (Accused No. 2), and his sister-in-law (Accused No. 3) attempted to suppress the incident by offering the victim’s mother, money and pressuring her to have an abortion. Accused Nos. 2 & 3 were acquitted. The Applicant was arrested on March 22, 2017, and has been in custody since. He filed an appeal against his conviction, which was admitted on November 2, 2023. The Applicant, who is 73 years old and suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure, filed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of interim bail pending the final hearing of his appeal.
Issues:
Whether the Applicant’s sentence should be suspended and he should be granted interim bail pending the final hearing of his appeal?
Arguments Advanced:
Applicant/Appellant:
- Discrepancies exist in the evidence regarding the collection of samples for the DNA test, particularly noting that the Applicant initially refused to provide a sample.
- The medical examination of the Applicant occurred in November 2017, a significant time lapse after the alleged incident in January 2017.
- The Applicant has already served a significant portion of his sentence (7 years and 8 months).
- The Applicant’s advanced age and health conditions warrant leniency.
- Relied on previous orders in similar cases, specifically Mohd. Salim Noor Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Dhonduram Bhiku Tambe v. State of Maharashtra, where interim bail was granted.
Respondent/State:
- The DNA test conducted on the Applicant conclusively proves he is the father of the victim’s child.
- The victim’s mental disability, supported by the testimony of her teacher and a psychiatrist’s report, makes the aspect of consent irrelevant.
- The Applicant, as the landlord, held a position of dominance over the victim and her mother.
- There is evidence of attempts to suppress the crime and force the victim into an abortion.
- The previous cases cited by the Applicant are factually dissimilar and do not apply to the present case.
Judgment:
The Court rejected the Applicant’s application for suspension of sentence and grant of interim bail.
Legal Analysis:
The Court, in its analysis, considered the following key aspects:
- DNA Evidence: The Court found the DNA test report to be conclusive evidence establishing the Applicant as the father of the victim’s child.
- Position of Dominance: The Court recognized the inherent power imbalance between the Applicant, as the landlord, and the victim and her mother, who were employed as domestic help in his house. This factor contributed to the vulnerability of the victim.
- Victim’s Mental Capacity: The Court acknowledged the victim’s mental disability, based on the evidence presented, which significantly impacted the issue of consent. The psychiatrist’s report assessing her IQ at 42% reinforced this conclusion.
- Attempts to Suppress Evidence: The Court considered the efforts made by the Applicant, along with his wife and sister-in-law, to conceal the crime and prevent the victim from reporting the assault.
- Distinguishing Precedents: The Court differentiated the present case from the previous orders cited by the Applicant, highlighting that the facts and circumstances were materially different. In the Mohd. Salim case, the accused had already served a substantial portion of their sentence, while in the Dhonduram case, the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by other witnesses.
Conclusion:
The Court’s decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, legal arguments, and relevant precedents. The Court concluded that the gravity of the offense, the compelling DNA evidence, the victim’s vulnerability due to her mental disability, and the attempts to suppress the crime outweighed the mitigating factors presented by the Applicant. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for interim bail and expedited the hearing of the appeal considering the Applicant’s age.