ANAND TATYABA KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/accused against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Greater Bombay, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the Appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. It was also directed that the amount of fine, if paid by the accused, be paid to the prosecutrix after prescribed period of appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Pradhan appearing for the accused has submitted that the judgment of conviction of the Sessions Court is based on weak and uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The learned Advocate advanced four major points by way of defence while challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court. He submitted that the evidence of PW1 the prosecutrix is without corroboration. The so called corroboration of the testimony of PW6 Balaram Shivram Waghmare cannot be believed as the said witness was declared hostile and he has not at all supported the evidence of PW1 prosecutrix. Learned Advocate pointed out that the evidence of PW6 Balaram Waghmare about the movements of the prosecutrix, accused and himself is not consistent with the evidence of the prosecutrix. He did not support the evidence of the prosecutrix on a vital point especially where he was standing outside the examination room when the incident has taken place and the accused and the prosecutrix were left alone in the examination room.