CASE NAME	Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371
CITATION	2004 SCC (Cri) 1259: 2004 SCC OnLine SC 190
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat
APPELLANT	Raju Pandurang Mahale
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra and Another
DECIDED ON	11th February 2004

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (11 February 2004), the appellant, Raju Pandurang Mahale, filed a criminal appeal contesting his conviction for criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The appellant was charged with sexually assaulting a neighbor and threatening to hurt her if she told the police about the occurrence.

The appellant reportedly took advantage of the fact that the victim was at her house when the occurrence occurred and forcibly committed the crime. The victim’s testimony, which was supported by the facts of the crime, was a key component of the prosecution’s case. The victim alleged that the appellant had sexually attacked her and threatened to destroy her and her family if she reported the incident when she attempted to resist.

The defense contended that the victim’s account of what happened was contradictory and that the rape charge lacked tangible proof. Additionally, the appellant asserted that the victim had made up the story out of personal resentment or other hidden agendas. However, based on the evidence presented, including the victim’s repeated assertions and the relevant circumstances, the trial court judged the victim’s testimony to be believable and found the appellant guilty.

The appeal brought up important issues of whether the crime of criminal intimidation was proven, the necessity of supporting evidence, and the evidential weight of the victim’s testimony in sexual assault cases. To decide whether the conviction and the sentence were appropriate, the Bombay High Court was entrusted with examining these factors.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The victim, a woman who lived in the appellant’s neighborhood, testified that on the evening of the occurrence, he had sexually attacked her. According to the victim, the appellant came into her home pretending to assist her with certain tasks. He is accused of brutally raping her once he was inside. The appellant threatened to hurt the victim and her family if she reported the assault when she tried to resist or yell for assistance.

After the appellant left her house, the victim called the police to report the occurrence. Although the defense contested the veracity of the victim’s statement and the absence of tangible evidence that clearly connected the appellant to the offense, medical evidence during the inquiry supported the victim’s allegations of sexual assault. The victim’s accusations, according to the defense, were made up and driven by personal resentment or other hidden agendas.

Based on the victim’s continuous evidence and the facts of the case, the trial court found the appellant guilty of both rape under Section 376 and criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC. The court determined that the offense constituted to sexual assault and that the appellant’s acts were obviously meant to scare the victim into silence.

However, the appellant challenged the conviction on appeal, arguing that the victim’s testimony was unreliable and that there was no physical evidence to support it. The Bombay High Court then examined the case to assess if the conviction was appropriate and whether the charges were adequately supported by the evidence.

ISSUES RAISED

• In the event that there is no substantial physical evidence, is the victim’s statement reliable and adequate to prove rape?
• Does the victim’s description of the appellant’s behavior qualify as criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code?
• Is it possible for the defense to successfully refute the appellant’s conviction by pointing to the absence of supporting evidence and the potential for a false narrative?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of appellant

The appellant’s skilled counsel argued in favor of the appeal that the offenses under Sections 342 and 354 of the IPC were not proven. From his point of view. The role assigned to the appellant, it was said, does not in any way prove the presence of the elements required to form an offense punishable under Sections 342 and 354 IPC. He emphasized that the prosecution claims that A-2 locked the door from the outside of A-4’s home. The victim claimed that A-4 forced her to consume alcohol, although the appellant had not put it into the prosecutrix’s mouth. The High Court acted as though the applicant and A-4 had coerced her into drinking alcohol.

Arguments on behalf of respondent

The State’s counsel responded by arguing that the Trial Court and the High Court had thoroughly examined the material. The victim clearly identifies the appellant’s role, and in any case, Section 34 was used to demonstrate that he had the same purpose to commit the alleged offenses. Therefore, there is no need to tamper with the conviction or the punishment as it has been given.

JUDGMENT

The idea of joint accountability in committing a crime served as the foundation for the enactment of Section 34. The Section does not establish a substantive offense; it is merely a rule of evidence. The element of action engagement is what makes this section unique. If a criminal conduct is carried out in pursuit of a shared intention among those who participate in the crime, Section 34 makes one person liable for an offense committed by another during a multi-person criminal act. Since there is rarely direct evidence of a shared intention, it must be inferred from the circumstances that arise from the case’s proven facts and circumstances. The prosecution must prove, either directly or indirectly, that there was a plan or agreement among the accused to commit the crime for which they are charged under Section 34, whether it was prearranged or spontaneous, but it must always occur prior to the crime being committed in order to prove the charge of common intention. The actual idea behind Section is that if two or more people purposefully carry out an action together, their legal standing is same to that of if they had each carried out the action alone.

Neither “the common intention of all” nor “and intention common to all” are mentioned in this section. The existence of a shared goal that motivates the accused to commit a crime in pursuit of that aim constitutes the essence of responsibility under section 34’s requirements. Due to the application of the principles outlined in Section 34, a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 entails that the accused bears legal responsibility for the act that caused the deceased’s death in the same way as he would have if he had committed it alone. The clause is meant to address a situation where it could be challenging to determine which actions of specific party members advance the group’s shared goal or to pinpoint the precise role that each member played.

When examined from whatever perspective, the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court in finding the appellant guilty do not contain any flaws that would justify interfering with the use of the authority granted by Article 136 of the Indian Constitution of 1950. One may say that the sentences imposed are on the higher end of the spectrum. Conversely, the case’s background facts demonstrate that light penalties were given. Due to its lack of merit, the appeal is denied.

CONCLUSION

The court’s main concern in Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (11 February 2004) was whether the victim’s testimony was credible and sufficient to prove the accusations of rape and criminal intimidation. The victim’s account, which was consistent and thorough, was a major component of the prosecution’s case. According to the victim, the appellant forcefully raped her, threatened to harm her if she reported the offense, and entered her home under false pretenses. Medical evidence supported the victim’s allegation of sexual assault even though there was no overt physical evidence, such as ripped clothing or other obvious indicators of violence.

The defense of the appellant contended that the victim’s account was made up, citing the lack of tangible proof and raising the possibility of hidden agendas in the charge. The victim’s reliability was also called into question by the defense, who pointed out contradictions in her story. Nonetheless, the victim’s testimony was deemed trustworthy by the court and in line with the case’s circumstances. It stated that the victim’s testimony is frequently the main piece of evidence in sexual assault cases, and that the lack of tangible proof does not always make it less reliable.

The victim’s testimony further supported the accusation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC, since the appellant allegedly threatened to harm the victim and her family if she reported the crime. It is obvious that the appellant’s acts were meant to frighten the victim into silence.

After considering the evidence, the Bombay High Court maintained the appellant’s conviction for rape and criminal intimidation. The court stressed the value of the victim’s testimony, even when there may not be much tangible proof. The court determined that the conviction was reasonable in light of the appellant’s acts, the victim’s consistent statement, and the supporting medical evidence. The conviction was supported by substantial evidence, and the charges of rape and criminal intimidation were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.