Latest JudgementIndian Evidence Act, 1872

Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025

The Court balanced the interests of justice by affirming the kidnapping conviction where evidence was adequate, showing nuanced judicial review.

Bombay High Court·18 August 2025

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Court

Bombay High Court

Date of Decision

18 August 2025

Judges

Justice Suman Shyam ⦁ Justice Shyam C. Chandak.

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Deepak Babasaheb Gaikwad, was convicted by the trial court for sexual assault and kidnapping.
The prosecution failed to call the victim and the police officer (PSI Ghodke) who recorded the victim’s statement as witnesses during the trial.
The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the omission to examine these key witnesses fatally weakened the prosecution’s case and violated his right to a fair trial.

Whether the failure to examine the victim in a sexual assault case undermines the prosecution’s case?
Whether the non-examination of the police officer who recorded the victim’s statement is a material lapse?
Whether the Court can draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act for not producing essential witnesses?
Whether the conviction under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC should be upheld despite the procedural lapses?
Whether the accused was denied the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 due to these omissions?

The prosecution’s failure to examine the victim and the investigating officer is a fatal lapse that vitiates the conviction for sexual assault charges.
The accused’s right to a fair trial was violated due to the non-examination of essential witnesses.
The Convictions under sexual assault-related charges were quashed. The Conviction related to kidnapping was maintained.

The Court reaffirmed the paramount importance of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It emphasized the prosecution’s duty to present all material witnesses — especially in cases involving serious allegations like sexual assault.
The absence of the victim’s testimony and the failure to examine the police officer who recorded her statement created a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.
By invoking Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court demonstrated judicial authority to draw adverse inferences against the prosecution when it fails to produce vital evidence.
The judgment highlights the need for strict adherence to procedural norms to uphold justice, especially in sensitive cases affecting fundamental rights.
The Court balanced the interests of justice by affirming the kidnapping conviction where evidence was adequate, showing nuanced judicial review.