TUKARAM PANDURANG MHASKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by the Designated Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012, Greater Bombay convicting the appellant for the ofences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short). The appellant is sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fne, he is further sentenced to sufer R.I. for six months in respect of the ofence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The appellant is sentenced to sufer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fne of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fne, he is sentenced to sufer R.I. for three months in respect of the ofence punishable under Section 506 (II) of the IPC. The appellant is sentenced to sufer imprisonment for life and to pay a fne of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fne, he is sentenced to sufer R.I. for six months in respect of the ofence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the victim's marriage was solemnised on 31/12/2012 with the son of the appellant. She started residing in matrimonial home after her marriage. The victim's husband was working in Blood Donation Ofce at Belapur. His duty hours were 7.00 a.m. till 6 p.m. Her father-inlaw - the appellant herein was working on the garbage van of Mumbai Municipal Corporation at Mumbai. The appellant's duty hours were from 6.00 a.m. till 10.30 a.m. The victim's mother-inlaw was working as a maid servant. Her working hours were 7.00 a.m. till 5.30 p.m. The victim's sister-in-law was a school going student. She used to leave for school at around 12.00 noon and return home around 6.00 p.m. During the absence of these family members only the victim and her father-in-law used to be there in the house.

(3.) Sometime in the month of July, 2013 the victim noticed the appellant started behaving inappropriately, as she noticed sexual overtures in the behaviour of the appellant. The appellant's behaviour was normal when the other family members were around. However, in the absence of the family members the appellant started demanding sexual favours. The victim was under impression that her married life will be ruined if she informed her husband about these happenings therefore ignored it. On 15/7/2013, the appellant came to the 'potmala' (mezzanine foor) of the house at around 12.30 p.m. where she was asleep and squeezed her breast. She was shocked to see the appellant upon waking up. The victim was frightened and raised her voice. The appellant, however, threatened her with dire consequences. He committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He had closed the victim's mouth with one hand and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The victim did not disclose this incident on that day either to her husband or mother-in-law as the appellant had not only threatened to kill her but also feared that her married life will be ruined. Even on the next day on 16/7/2013, at around 12.15 p.m. the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The appellant persisted with his threat to kill the victim if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The victim then informed her mother-in-law and her husband about this incident which they refused to believe and on the contrary, accused her of telling a lie.