Bombay High Court Confirms 14-Year Sentence for Man Found Guilty of Raping His Mother-in-Law.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court confirmed a 14-year prison sentence for a man found guilty of raping his 55-year-old mother-in-law. The court highlighted the serious breach of trust and the severe emotional impact on the victim. Justice GA Sanap, who presided over the case, called the act a shocking betrayal that destroyed the woman’s dignity, noting that she could never have imagined such an attack from her son-in-law.
The case details: On December 21, 2018, the victim, a flower seller near the Chandrapur Bus Stand, received a call from her granddaughter, who said she was ill. Worried, the victim went to Nagbhid to see her. Later that evening, the accused, Shailesh Mahadeo Lanjewar, approached her at her shop, insisting she ride with him on his motorcycle, claiming he wanted to mend things with her daughter. She reluctantly agreed, but during the ride, he stopped in Lohara to buy liquor. Under the influence, he made unwanted advances, and despite her refusal, he dragged her into a nearby forest and assaulted her. Afterward, he lost his motorcycle keys and sought help from people at a nearby outpost. When she tried to report the assault, no one listened. Lanjewar continued to threaten her, forcing her to go with him again, and assaulted her once more near a bus stop by the Andhari River around 3 a.m. The nightmare ended when they arrived at his sister’s house in Nagbhid around 10 a.m. Later, the victim shared her experience with her granddaughter, who encouraged her to tell her daughter. With her daughter’s support, she reported the crime at the Ramnagar police station, leading to Lanjewar’s arrest.
During the trial, the Defense claimed that the complainant had consented, arguing she had chances to leave and was there willingly. In response, the prosecution presented eleven witnesses who supported the timeline of events and proved Lanjewar’s guilt. In March 2022, the Trial Court found him guilty, dismissing the defense’s consent claim. At the High Court, the accused repeated his argument, but the Single-Judge pointed out that simply going along with something under pressure does not mean there was consent. The judge noted that the complainant had no reason to lie about such a painful experience. The Court remarked, “The appellant was upset due to issues in his marriage,” and rejected the idea that this frustration could excuse his actions or be seen as consent.
Additionally, the Court emphasized the shame and social repercussions that often prevent victims from coming forward, especially when family members are involved. The Court stated that if the assault had been consensual, the victim would not have wanted to face the lifelong shame of sexual assault claims. “If it was consensual, she wouldn’t have told her daughter about it. It’s important to note that the appellant, who is the son-in-law of the complainant, committed this disgraceful act against his mother-in-law, who is as old as his own mother. The appellant violated the dignity of the complainant,” the Court stated. “The defense’s claim that this was a false case made out of revenge is not credible. If the complainant wanted to falsely accuse the appellant, she would have created a different story and wouldn’t have risked such a direct attack on her own character,” the Single-Judge concluded.
The Bench stated that she would not have tolerated such a blatant attack on her character, particularly as a mother of five. They noted that if she had wanted to falsely accuse the defendant, she could have created a different story. The Court supported the trial court’s decision, highlighting the justice needed for the victim due to the serious breach of trust and trauma she faced. “The evidence presented clearly proves the rape. It is important to recognize that the appellant exploited his relationship with the victim. She would never have imagined that her son-in-law could commit such a terrible act. Therefore, I find no reason to dismiss or doubt the prosecution’s evidence. The Judge carefully analyzed the evidence and reached a fair conclusion. I see no reason to challenge the well-reasoned judgment and order made by the Judge. The sentence given is entirely appropriate for the severity of the crime. No changes are needed in this regard. Thus, I conclude that the appeal lacks merit. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed,” the Court ruled.
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
