ASHOK SURAJLAL UIKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are as under:

(2.) Mr. Lambat, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has raised several arguments before us during the course of the hearing. He has first pointed out that the First Information Report had been lodged belatedly as the offence had taken place on the 8th October, 1997 and the FIR had been lodged three days thereafter and that in any case the doctor's evidence did not support the commission of rape and at the worst (for the Appellant) the matter fell under Section 354 of the IPC.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra has, however, pointed out that there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and in fact no suggestion had come from the defence as to why they would give a false story. It has also been pleaded that in the light of the completely acceptable evidence of P.W. 1 even if the doctor's evidence with regard to the commission of rape was slightly uncertain it would not in any manner detract from the prosecution story.