STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NARENDRA JAYWANT DUDANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal preferred under section 378 (1) Cri. P. C. the State of Maharashtra impugns the judgment and order dated 20-8-1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 153 of 1983 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 57 of the Bombay Children Act.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the prosecution case runs as under :---The prosecutrix-Sangita Raghunath Pednekar, aged about 9 years at the time of the incident was living in Building No. 52, Room No. 1662, Tagore Nagar, Vikroli, Bombay-83 along with her mother Vijaya Pednekar P. W. 1, her father Raghunath Pednekar (not examined) her brothers Vishwas and Sudhir. At that time, the respondent along with his wife Jayshree Dudhang was staying in the adjoining room bearing No. 1661. The prosecutrix and her brothers Vishwas and Sudhir were studying in Vidya Mandir School. On 18-3-1982 at about 7 a. m. the prosecutrix left her house for the school and at 12. 30 noon came back therefrom. Thereafter, she took her lunch. At about 3. 30 p. m. she accompanied her brother Sudhir to the school. After reaching him there, she came back to her house. Thereafter, at about 4 p. m. she went to attend the private tuition class run by Jayshree Dudang, the wife of the respondent. At 5 p. m. when the class was over, she came back to her house. At about 5. 30 p. m. she left her house to fetch Sudhir from the school. When she was returning along with Sudhir from the latters school, the respondent whom she used to call mama (mothers brother) met her. The respondent asked Sudhir to go home. He thereafter caught hold of her hand and asked her to accompany him to his new house which was at a distance of two buildings from the premises wherein she and the respondent stayed. Accordingly, Sudhir went home and the prosecutrix and the respondent went to the latters new house situated on the first floor of Building No. 410. After entering it, the respondent closed the door of the room; spread a blanket in the centre of the room; and asked her to lie down on the blanket. The prosecutrix acceded to his wishes. Thereafter, he removed his underwear; raised her petticoat up to the stomach; applied a oily substance which he had taken out from a bottle on her private parts; removed his lungi and under wear and tried to penetrate his private part in her private part. Since it started paining, the prosecutrix started saying "hun hun". At that juncture, the respondent put his hand on her mouth and with a piece of cloth wiped out the oily substance which he had put on her private part. He thereafter went inside the bathroom. She then put on her underwear. After he came out from the bathroom, he told her not to disclose the incident to her parents or anyone. She agreed. Then the respondent opened the door of the room. When she came out therefrom, she met her the younger brother Sudhir. When she and Sudhir had come down on the ground floor, the respondent called her again and warned her not to disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter, she along with Sudhir went to her house and on being questioned by her mother Vijaya Pednekar, she narrated to her the entire incident. Thereafter, her mother along with her went to the house of the respondent and when she questioned him, he apologised and promised that he would not commit such an act again. Thereafter, she and her mother came back to their house. At about 9 p. m. her father Raghunath Pednekar, who at that time was employed in Hoechest Company came back from work. Her mother Vijaya narrated the entire incident to him.

(3.) THE evidence of the prosecutrix Sangita Pednekar and her mother Vijaya Pednekar shows that after Raghunath Pednekar had come back home and the latter had informed him about the incident, they proceeded to Vikroli Police Station where Vijaya Pednekar lodged an F. I. R. on the basis of which S. I. Vinayak Kharat P. W. 9 registered a case under section 376/511 I. P. C. , at 9. 30 p. m. against the respondent.