"Defiled The Womanhood Of The Prosecutrix": Bombay HC Upholds 14-Year Sentence For Man Convicted For Raping His Mother-In-Law

The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench on Tuesday upheld a 14-year sentence for a man convicted of raping his 55-year-old mother-in-law, citing the grave violation of trust and the traumatic impact on the victim’s life.

The Single-Bench of Justice GA Sanap described the act as a reprehensible betrayal that shattered the woman’s dignity and underscored that, in her "wildest dreams," she would not have imagined such an assault from her son-in-law.

The prosecution case: on December 21, 2018, the complainant, a flower vendor near the Chandrapur Bus Stand, was contacted by her granddaughter, who claimed to be unwell. Concerned, the complainant agreed to visit her in Nagbhid. Later that evening, the accused, Shailesh Mahadeo Lanjewar, confronted her at her shop, pressuring her to accompany him on his motorcycle under the pretense of helping him reconcile with her estranged daughter. Reluctantly, she agreed, but during their journey, Lanjewar stopped in Lohara to purchase country liquor. Around 10 p.m., under the influence of alcohol, he propositioned her, stating his intention to establish a physical relationship. Despite her resistance, he forcibly took her into a nearby jungle and sexually assaulted her. Following this, he lost his motorcycle keys and sought help from individuals at a nearby forest outpost. When she attempted to disclose the assault, her pleas were ignored. Lanjewar continued to intimidate the victim, forcing her to accompany him further, and again assaulted her near a bus stop by the Andhari River at around 3 a.m. The ordeal only concluded when they reached his sister’s residence in Nagbhid around 10 a.m. The victim later confided in her granddaughter, who urged her to tell her daughter about the incident. Encouraged by her daughter, she reported the assault at the Ramnagar police station, leading to Lanjewar’s arrest.

During the trial, the Defense argued that the complainant was a consenting party, claiming that she had multiple opportunities to escape and her presence was voluntary. However, the prosecution countered with eleven witnesses who corroborated the sequence of events and established Lanjewar’s guilt. In March 2022, the Trial Court convicted him, rejecting the defense's consent argument.

In the High Court, the accused reiterated his argument, but the Single-Judge emphasized that mere acquiescence under duress does not imply consent, and the prosecutrix had little reason to fabricate such a traumatic experience. “The appellant was frustrated due to marital discord,” noted the Court, rejecting the notion that this frustration justified his actions or could be interpreted as consent.

Further, the Court highlighted the stigma and social consequences that deter victims from reporting such crimes, particularly in cases involving family members. The Court observed that if the assault had been consensual, the victim would not have subjected herself to the lifelong stigma associated with sexual assault allegations.

"If it was a consensual act, then she would not have even disclosed the same to her daughter. It is to be noted that the appellant, who is the son-in-law of the prosecutrix, has committed this shameful act with his mother-in-law, who is of the age of his own mother. The appellant defiled the womanhood of the prosecutrix," the Court said.

"The defence of the appellant that, for the sake of taking revenge, this false case was created cannot be believed. It is to be noted that if the prosecutrix wanted to involve the appellant in a false case, then she would have invented another story. She would not have allowed such a direct attack on her character," the Single-Judge added.

“She would not have allowed such a direct attack on her character, especially as a mother of five children,” remarked the Bench, adding that if she had intended to falsely implicate the accused, she could have invented another narrative.

The Court upheld the trial court’s sentence, emphasizing the justice owed to the victim for the severe breach of trust and trauma she endured. "The evidence on record is sufficient to prove the rape on her. It is to be noted that the appellant took advantage of his relations with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix would not have imagined in the wildest of dreams that her son-in-law would commit such a deplorable act with her. In this case, therefore, I do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned Judge has done a meticulous analysis of the evidence and has come to a just and proper conclusion. I do not see any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge. The sentence awarded by the learned Judge on all counts is absolutely proportionate to the gravity of the crime. No interference is warranted on this count as well. As such, I conclude that there is no substance in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Shailesh Mahadeo Lanjewar v. State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation No. 2024:BHC-NAG:12394]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocate Yogesh Mandpe

Respondent: APP Mukta Kavimandan, Advocate Falguni Badani

Click here to read/download the Judgment