SANTOSH DIGAMBAR IBITWAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application has been filed by the original accused for suspension of sentence awarded in Sessions Case No.7/2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli on 14.05.2019. The present applicant has been sentenced thus -

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Deshmukh for the applicant and learned APP Mr. B.V. Virdhe for respondent No.1/State. Learned Advocate Mr. S.P. Chate appearing for respondent No.2 is absent.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly and failed to consider, that she was not minor at the time when the alleged incident took place. In fact, there are observations by the learned Trial Judge himself, that accused has succeeded in creating reasonable doubt regarding age of the prosecutrix, and therefore, definitely benefit is given to the accused. Therefore, learned Judge failed to consider that the prosecutrix is a consenting party. When she says that the act was done 7-8 times by the accused, this fact itself was sufficient to hold that the ingredients of the offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code have not been proved. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra , 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1073, wherein on the basis of evidence it was held, that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, and with knowledge that no promise to marry was given or it was a false promise, the informant herself had engaged in the sexual relations. Ingredients of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code have not been attracted. It was also submitted that the sentence, that has been imposed, is small sentence. The applicant was on bail throughout the trial, and therefore, till the conclusion of the appeal he deserves to be released on bail.