BALU BHAUSAHEB KOTHULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant (original accused) by way of judgment and order, dated 12.1.2011. It appears that the appellant herein faced the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code under Sessions Case No.136 of 2010 and was convicted therefor, excepting for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; and was also sentenced to suffer R.I. for two months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code; and was further sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code; as well as was sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code; and it was also directed that the afore said substantive sentences to run concurrently, by way of judgment and order, dated 12.1.2011, rendered by the learned District Judge-6 and Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.

(2.) THE factual matrix and the events leading to the present appeal are as follows :-

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecutrix that on 5.4.2010 the prosecutrix returned to the house after giving the examination paper and prepared food at about 9.00 p.m. At this juncture, the appellant came to the house in drunken condition. The prosecutrix served him food. After the dinner, the appellant went out of the house. Thereafter, the prosecutrix, her sister Nikita and grand father Bhausaheb also took their dinner and went to sleep in the court yard of the house. The appellant returned home at about 11.00 p.m. It is alleged that the prosecutrix woke up when her legs were pulled by the appellant father and the appellant skidded her inside of the house from the court yard. Thereupon, the prosecutrix cried, but the appellant gave threat to kill her, and hence, prosecutrix remained silent. After taking inside the house, the appellant removed her salvar, kurta, petty coat and nicker. The prosecutrix was beseeching "No, No" and started weeping. However, the appellant ignored her weeping and started rubbing her chest. Then, the accused removed his clothes and laid the prosecutrix on the cot and divided her legs opposite to each other and laid on the person of the prosecutrix and committed the sexual intercourse with her like husband and wife. The appellant also gagged her mouth by one hand. It is further alleged that there was pain to her urinating place and she became unconscious. It is further alleged that on the next day morning, the appellant kicked the prosecutrix and woke her up at 4.00 a.m. and asked her to cook food. Accordingly, after taking tifin, the appellant left the house at about 7.00 a.m. and while leaving the house gave threat to the prosecutrix to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anybody. Hence, the prosecutrix was scared.