KALIDAS M SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was accused no.2 in Sessions Case No.18/03 before the Sessions Court, Satara, has challenged the judgment and order dated 8.12.2003 whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 506 of the I.P.C.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that prosecutrix was a girl, aged about 14 years, resident of Deur Taluka: Koregaon, District: Satara. She used to live alongwith her mother Housabai and two brothers. During the period of Diwali 2002, prosecutrix had quarrel with her mother because her mother had suspicion that prosecutrix had an affair with a boy namely Amol Kharat. Prosecutrix had told the accused no.1 Sumal Bhima Kharat about that quarrel. On 9.11.2002, when the prosecutrix was about to proceed to the field of one Dharmaji Kadam for planting onions, accused no.1 Sumal approached her and asked her not to go to field and to accompany her to Vathar, from where they could go to Jat, maternal home of accused no.1. Accused no.1 persuaded her to accompany on the ground that her mother always used to quarrel with her. In view of this, prosecutrix accompanied accused no.1 to Vathar station from where she was taken to village Pimpode Budruk and from there they returned to Mal or open space of village Deur as the accused no.1 wanted to collect some money to go to Jat. During that night, they stayed in a hut at Deur. On 10.11.02, prosecutrix was taken to Ambavade by rickshaw by the accused no.1 and from there to Satara by S.T. Bus. On 11.11.02 accused no.1 took the prosecutrix to her mother's house. On the next day at about 3.00 p.m. accused no.2, who is also resident of village Deur, arrived at the house of the mother of the accused no.1 where the prosecutrix was staying with her. In the evening after dinner, accused no.1 asked the prosecutrix to sleep with the accused no.2 in the house and then she closed the door from outside. Accused no.1 and her mother went away to sleep outside. According to the prosecution after that, accused no.2 closed the mouth of the prosecutrix and threatened to kill her and had sexual intercourse with her. On the next day in the evening again accused no.2 had sexual intercourse with her. Prosecutrix told the accused no.1 but she also threatened to kill if the prosecutrix would disclose this incident to anybody. On 14.11.2002 at about 8 p.m. both the accused and the prosecutrix returned to Deur and the prosecutrix informed about the incident to her mother as well as uncle. On 15.11.2002, she lodged the report Ex.15 at Vathar police station. On the same day, prosecutrix was referred for medical examination at the Primary Health Centre, Vathar. On 16.11.2002, accused no.2 was also referred for medical examination. Clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the accused no.2 were seized. Blood samples and vaginal smear of the prosecutrix were collected and the articles were referred to the C.A. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in the present case, except the bare word of the prosecutrix, there is no evidence to substantiate the charge of the rape or threats. He also contended that there is nothing to show that prosecutrix was aged less than 16 years at the time of incident; On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently contended that corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix is not at all required if her evidence is trust worthy and that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.