IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO…….OF 2022
STAMP NO…..OF 2022
DISTRICT: GADCHIROLI

VINNI
.......APPELLANT
(PROSECUTRIX/COMPLAINENT)

VERSUS

1. STATE OF MAHARASTRA
2. SUNIL (Accused)
3. ANIL (Accused)
……RESPONDENT
 INDEX

SR. NO. EXHIBITS PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. ….. Memo of written statement

Judgement and Order dated …. passed by the Hon’ble Addl. Session

Judge & Special Judge under MCOC/NIA/POTA Act, Greater
Mumbai in MCOC Spl. Case No. 11 of 2014.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO…….OF 2022
STAMP NO…..OF 2022
DISTRICT: GADCHIROLI

VINNI
.......APPELLANT
(PROSECUTRIX/COMPLAINENT)

VERSUS

1. STATE OF MAHARASTRA
2. SUNIL (Accused)
3. ANIL (Accused)
……RESPONDENT
ACTS TO BE REFFERED:

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 375-Rape-What is the

meaning of without consent -Obtaining consent by putting fear of death
or hurt -Criminal trial -Onus is on prosecution to prove all the ingredients
of an offence.

2. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

AUTHORITIES TO BE CITED AT PRESENT:

NIL at present.

MUMBAI

DATED: 4 TH MARCH 2022 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO…….OF 2022
STAMP NO…..OF 2022
DISTRICT: GADCHIROLI

VINNI
.......APPELLANT

(PROSECUTRIX/COMPLAINENT)

VERSUS
1. STATE OF MAHARASTRA
2. SUNIL (Accused)
3. ANIL (Accused)
……RESPONDENT
TO,

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HIS LORDSHIPS’ OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY.

THE HUMBLE AFFIDAVIT-ON-REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 AND 3,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. Respondents 2 and 3 are the police chief constable and police

constable of the Gadchiroli district's Police station, respectively. It
demonstrates that the people who responded are Indian citizens. The
Hon'ble Court's jurisprudence applies to them. The above-mentioned
respondent no.2 affirms solemnly that the Hon'ble District court's
verdict is final. The Appellant is a young tribal girl named Vinni
(P.W. 1) who lived with her brother Alpha after her parents died
when she was a toddler. She worked as a labourer at Renu's (P.W 2)
residence for the employment. She met Mukesh (P.W.3), Renu's
sister's kid, during her travels to that place. Ashok (P.W.4) and
Mathura chose to marry when their friendship grew into closeness.

2. On March 26, 2011, Alpha filed a police report saying that the
appellant had been kidnapped by Renu, her husband Shyam, and
Mukesh. Head Constable Ramu took down the report, and at his
request, all three people accused of wrongdoing, as well as the
appellant, were brought to the police station about 9 p.m., when
Mukesh and Vinni's statements were taken down. It was 10.30 p.m.
at the time, and Ramu ordered everyone to go, instructing Alpha to
produce a copy of the entry pertaining to appellant's birth date. Alpha
and Mukesh started leaving the police station after Ramu had left
appellant Renu. Respondents, on the other hand, requested that
appellant stay at the police station while they conducted an
investigation into the complaint they had made.

3. The prosecution claimed that Respondent no. 2, a Police Head

Constable, and Respondent no. 3, a Police Constable assigned to the
Desai Gunj Police Station, raped appellant (P.W. 1) in the police
station. Respondent no. 1 Sunil took appellant into a toilet, raped her,
and then pulled her to a Chhapri on the rear side, where he raped her
again. Following that, Anil, the second respondent, fondled her
private parts but was unable to rape her due to his inebriation. The
aim of respondents' holding her in the police station was to
investigate the complaint that appellant and her brother had filed
against Renu's family.
4. There was no aggravated rape since the respondent did not compel
sexual intercourse with the appellant despite having authority. The
permission was provided by the appellant because she had a history
of sexual intercourse, which was proven in the session court. Even
though the police constable first declined, she attempted to intimidate
them in the hopes that the police constable would take her complaint
seriously after that. However, this did not occur, and she falsely
accused the respondents in front of the entire village, attempting to
discredit them. Even the Sessions Court recognised that there had
been sexual intercourse, but that it could not have been rape. The
medical findings claimed that there were no evidence of 'force' on the
girl, which the Court also alluded to. When referring to the juvenile
girl, the court used language like "stunning liar" and stated her
evidence was "riddled with lies and improbabilities."
5. Renu, Alpha, and Mukesh, who were waiting outside the police
station for appellant, became suspicious as a result of this. As a
result, they screamed and drew a throng. After some time had passed,
appellant came from the station and informed the gathering that she
had been forced to strip herself by policeman Sunil, who had then
proceeded to rape her. The enraged mob threatened to burn down the
police station after hearing this, and the chief constable was
compelled to take appellant's testimony down. Following that, a
complaint was filed. Appellant was checked by a doctor (P.W. 5)
who found that she had no damage on her person and that her hymen
exhibited ancient ruptures, despite the fact that she had no injury on
her person. Two fingers fit comfortably inside the vaginal opening.
The Chemical Examiner (P.W. 6) found no signs of semen in the
pubic hair or the vaginal-smear slide, but semen was identified on the
girl's clothing, indicating that something happened to appellant. The
doctor assessed the girl's age to be between 14 and 16 years.
6. According to the District Court Judge, there was insufficient
evidence to show that appellant was under the age of 16 on the day of
the incident. They found appellant to be a "shocking liar" whose
testimony was "rife with lies and improbabilities." The court
concluded that she had sexual intercourse while at the police station,
but that rape had not been proven, so the court relied on the
conclusion that she was habitually involved in sexual intercourse.
However, she had to appear virtuous in front of Renu and Mukesh
because they were angry with her. She would have given up her body
to the Constable if she had been honest with herself. As a result, the
appellants were found not guilty.

7. That the sexual intercourse was not coerced; the appellant fully
consented and was just trying to scare the respondents; she was used
to sexual intercourse and had no less motive here since she imagined
the policeman would take their complaint seriously after this.

8. That, the grounds on which the appellant referred in the appeal are all
baseless as;
A. The learned session court has evaluated all the evidence and taken
into account all of the appellant's false charges, and the basis that the
learned court has not is a severe allegation against the court's image.
The appellant has consented to the sexual intercourse, indicating that
sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code are inapplicable in
this case.

B. The learned trial court correctly concluded that the appellant was a
chronic sexual offender, and the fact remains that the accused
admittedly engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and the appellant
enabled them to do so under her free will. The constable's decision to
detain her was based on an investigation.
C. The trial court took into account the circumstantial evidence as well as
the facts that the incident took occurred at the police station. There
are no evidences that the Respondents have destroyed. The fact that
the police constable filed the complaint while knowing that the
appellant was unjustly accusing them demonstrates their innocence.

9.  I assert that the petition against the respondent is fraudulent,

frivolous, and without legal standing. The petition was filed without
cause of action with the express intent of harassing the respondents,
satisfying one's ego by pressuring them, and demoralising the
respondents' social position. As a result, the respondents deny each
and every substance of the petition para that is not expressly
conceded, putting the petitioner on the defensive and praying for the
petition to be dismissed at a high expense.
10. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the respondent now
crave leave of this Hon’ble court to deal with the
submission/allegations made in above said petition, seriating as
follows: -

A. I assert that the provisions of paragraph 1 of the appeal are accurate

and correct because both the appellant and the respondents are Indian
citizens who formerly worked for Renu and are now Police
Constables.
B. I believe that the contents of paragraph 2 of the appeal are partially
accurate and correct, but that certain of the assertions made in that
paragraph were untrue and so strongly repudiated by the respondents,
putting the petitioner on the spot to prove it.

C. I assert that the contents of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the appeal are

untrue and thus rigorously disputed by the respondents, placing the
petitioner in the position of stringent proof thereof. Because the
respondents did not rape the appellant, despite the fact that sexual
intercourse occurred with the agreement of the individuals involved.

D. With regard to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the appeal, I state that these are
matters of record before the Hon'ble court and the Ld. Tribunal, and
thus no more remarks are necessary.
9. I assert that the contents of prayer clauses (a) to (c) of the petition are
invalid, as the appellant demands and claims. She is ineligible for any
of the relief he seeks in his petition. As a result, it is requested before
the Hon'ble court that this petition be dismissed with costs.

10. Whatever stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information and I believe it to be correct.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai on this …………….

VERIFICATION

I, Mr/Mrs ….., Age- .., Occ- …, R/A- ….., the respondent no.1 above
named do hereby stated solemn affirmation that whatsoever stated herein
above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the
same is drafted as per….