SHRI SABHIR NOOR SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from judgment and order dated 21st July. 1999 passed in Sessions Case No.22/95 by the Additional Sessions Judge. Panaji. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 354, 376 r /w 511 and 506 of I.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 8th February. 1994 the appellant herein induced the minor girl P.W.3 to accompany him while she was on her way to her house from the school where she was studying and thereafter took her to the jungle area of Porvorim and with the use of criminal force outraged her modesty and also threatened her with injury to her person with the use of knife and also attempted to commit rape on her person. The prosecution apart from the complainant examined as many as nineteen witnesses including the cousin brother of the prosecutrix as P.W.6. panchas, doctors as well as Scientific Analyst who was examined as P.W. 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after analysing the entire evidence on record held the appellant to be guilty of the offences for which he was tried and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 1.000/ - in default two months simple imprisonment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 366 and a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default 15 days Simple Imprisonment, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a 'term of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of!. P. C. and further Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of one month for offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run consecutively under Section 31 Cr. P.C.

(3.) THE testimony of the prosecutrix clearly discloses that the Appellant on the pretext of reaching the prosecutrix and her cousin brother to their residence after they had left the school on 8th February, 1994 made them to accompany him upto the Mahalaxmi Temple at Panaji and once near the temple the Appellant told the cousin brother of the prosecutrix to get down from the scooter on the ground that he was required to fill the petrol in the scooter and for that purpose he asked the cousin brother of the prosecutrix to proceed further on foot and took the prosecutrix along with him on the scooter and proceeded towards Mandovi Bridge instead of going to any petrol pump. The testimony further discloses that the accused took the prosecutrix to the jungle on the right hand side of the road going towards Porvorim after the Mandovi Bridge and near the Maruti Car Station. Once in the jungle the Appellant removed the underwear of the prosecutrix as well as of himself along with his pant and tried to commit rape on her person and in the process he also threatened her with a pen knife when the prosecutrix tried to resist the uncivilized assault of the accused. The accused also kissed the prosecutrix on the said occasion. Her testimony further discloses that the accused also tried to pacify the prosecutrix by offering her a sum of Rs. 100/ - which she promptly refused. The accused thereafter reached the prosecutrix near the Fire Brigade Station which is in the neighbourhood of her residential house. Her testimony further discloses that the prosecutrix had narrated the entire incident immediately to her mother PW.7 and thereafter the prosecutrix was taken to the Police Station as well as to the hospital. The F.I.R. was lodged in the matter and she was subjected to medical examination. The clothes which she was wearing at the time of the incident were also attached and were subjected to necessary tests which has been established by the testimony of PW. 11 as well as by the panch witnesses. The testimony of the prosecutrix has not been shaken in any manner and on the contrary the cross -examination of the prosecutrix has lent support to prosecution case. The fact that the accused was driving on the scooter at the relevant time and day has been clearly established by the testimony of the prosecutrix and she has even identified the scooter. In fact, the cross -examination of the prosecutrix further discloses that the fact that the accused was riding the concerned scooter on the relevant day and time was not at all disputed apart from the fact that the same has been clearly established by her testimony.