SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed by the original accused for suspension of sentence imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.31 of 2016, dated 02-11-2019 for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code . He has been sentenced thus ;

(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. S. Deshmukh for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. A. A. Jagatkar for respondent-State, and perused the record and proceedings.

(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly. The prosecutrix had left the house voluntarily and the evidence showed that, she had admitted to meet the accused three to four times. The accused had not accepted the proposal of her marriage with him but since she wanted to extort money from father of the accused, and even in that respect the father had got executed a document from her, the prosecution did not examine the friend of the informant who could have thrown light on the entire episode. A false report has been lodged and the learned Judge failed to segregate the real facts. Reliance has been placed on the decision in, Deepak Gulathi Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2013 AIR (SC) 2071, wherein the difference between consensual sex and rape has been underlined. It has been held that,