STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOPICHAND FATTUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are by the four accused who have been convicted under Section 366 read with section 34 and Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences being directed to run concurrently. These accused were charged along with four others. Accused No. 7 was a motor driver and accused No. 8 is his Wife. The girl in this case is one Anusaya, the daughter of one Shakunthala whose husband died when Anusaya was yet a very small child. Shakuntala started living with accused No. 7 as his mistress bringing the child with her. After some time accused No. 7 started illtreating her as a result of which she left him and went to Nasik and married some one else. The girl Anusaya, however, continued to be with accused No. 7 who reared her up. He got her married about a few months before the present incident. The girl stayed with her husband Maruti alias Ramlal for a few days and then was called back by accused No. 7, After that, she again went back to her husband for a few days and then accused No. 7 brought her back allegedly for the Divali holidays. After this, he did not send her to her husband's house. According to her, she was compelled to have sexual relations against her will with customers for money which he recovered from them. It was alleged that on 13th January 1980 accused No. 3 went to the house of accused No. 7 and asked him to bring Anusaya and another girl Chandrakala, a neighbour, to Gulzar Cinema owned by him (accused No. 3) for the second show. After this, accused No. 7 and accused No. 8 along with Anusaya and Chandrakala accused No. 6 the neighbour went to the second show. After the interval, at a sign from accused No. 3 Chandrakala and Anusaya were taken to Bohari Kathada by one Devidas. Accused No. 7 accompanied them upto the stair case of that room. It appears that Sub-Inspector of Police Pagare who had information that these accused were having a drinking bout in, that room, raided the room and during the raid he found all these four accused consuming liquor along with one Abdul Rahim a court clerk in the Sessions Court. At this time, both Chandrakala and Anusaya were also in that room. According to the police officer, he was peeping through the chink in the shutter of the door and he saw accused No. 5 coming, out from behind the curtain in that room with Anusaya. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were sent to the medical officer for their examination. During the course of investigation it was discovered that the age of Anusaya was less than 18 years. Information was laid before the Magistrate for offences under Sections 366 and 366-A against all the accused in regard to Anusaya. Devidas was in the meantime made an approver. The learned Magistrate committed all the accused to stand their trial for these offences in the Court of Session.

(2.) REGARDING the offence, material evidence was that of Anusaya and approver Devidas. The medical evidence proved the age of Anusaya to be below 16 years. The other evidence consisted of the police officers and the panch. The defence of these accused was simple. They said that they were not in the room which was raided by the police officer but in the adjoining room and it was only when the raid was being effected that they all came out and that they had been falsely implicated in this offence. Accused No. 1 stated that his father was a tenant of the adjoining room. They also led defence evidence to show that the girl was more than 18 years of age and that they were sitting in the adjoining room. It is needless to say that this defence was disbelieved by the learned Judge. In the result, he convicted the accused as stated above. It is against this judgment that the present appeals are brought to this Court by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and accused No. 3.

(3.) IT may be mentioned at the outset that accused No, 7 had filed an appeal to this Court through jail, which we dismissed as we were satisfied that he was rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge,