SHRI PATIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and order dated 12th March, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Special Criminal Case No. 24/2007. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant under section 363, 366 A, 377, 376 (2) (f) of IPC. For the offence under section 363 of IPC he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/i/ d to suffer simple imprisonment for three months; for the offence under section 366A of IPC he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/i/d to suffer simple imprisonment for three months; for the offence under section 376F of IPC he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/in default rigorous imprisonment for six months; for the offence under section 377 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/i/ d rigorous imprisonment for three months; and for the offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/i/d to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: P.W.1 Indubai was residing along with her two sons and daughter Nandini who was aged about 8 years in village Irandi. Indubai belonged to Mahar caste (Scheduled Caste). THE appellant was known to the family of Indubai as he used to come to the house of Indubai in the life time of her husband. On 23.5.2007, the appellant came to the house of the Indubai and he took the prosecutrix along with him on bicycle stating that he would give her some biscuits. THEreafter, the appellant took the prosecutrix to the jungle, he removed the clothes of the prosecutrix and his clothes. According to the prosecutrix, the appellant tried to enter his private part into her private part and her buttock. THEre was bleeding from her private part. THE accused gave one piece of cloth to clean the blood. THEreafter, he left her near a bridge and went away. THE prosecutrix came back to her house and informed the incident to her mother. P.W.1 Indubai found that the nicker and other clothes of her daughter were blood stained. Indubai then went to Navegaon Bandh Police Station and lodged report (Exh. 21) against the appellant. THE prosecutrix was referred to the Rural Hospital for examination. P.W. 6 Doctor Minal examined the prosecutrix. Dr. Minal noticed that there was bleeding from vagina and there was tear of vagina and clitoris and the hymen was ruptured. THEre were multiple lacerations over vaginal area. Lateral internal vulva of vagina had tear and there was tear on posterior pouch of douglas. THE patient was admitted and was under observation for seven days. THE vaginal vulvas was sutured. Accordingly, Dr. Kamble issued certificate (Exh. 39). In the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries were possible due to forceful penetration. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

(3.) THE star witness in the present case is the prosecutrix (P.W.2). At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was about eight years old. THE prosecutrix has stated that at about 11.00 am. accused came to her house. He stated that he would give her a packet of biscuits. He took her on his bicycle to the jungle. Accused removed her clothes and also his clothes. THE accused tried to penetrate his private part in her private part and her buttock. THEre was bleeding from her private part. THE accused gave her one piece of cloth for cleaning blood. THEreafter, he left her near a bridge and went away. THEn she came back to her house and informed the incident to her mother.