SATISH GAYAJI GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal against conviction by both the Appellants for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C., 452 and 406 r.w. Section 34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.1000/ in default to suffer further R.I for 3 months each for the offence under Section 376(2)(g). They have been sentenced to suffer R.I for 1 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/ i/d suffer R.I for 1 month each for the offence under Section 452 r.w. Section 34 of the I.P.C. They have been further sentenced to suffer R.I for 6 months and pay fine of Rs.500/ and i/d to suffer R.I for 1 month each under Section 506 r.w. Section 34 of I.P.C. All these sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the prosecurtrix who is a married woman with 2 children was alone in her house with her children when the accused came into her house at 2 a.m on 5 th September 2005 and accused No.1 committed rape upon the prosecutrix whilst accused No.2 put his legs on her hands and pressed her mouth. This case has been sought to be proved through the evidence of 7 witnesses. The most material witness is the prosecutrix herself who is examined as P.W.2. P.W. 1 is the neighbour who has proved the recovery of mattress and the clothes of the prosecutrix. P.W.3 is the Doctor who examined the prosecutrix and has proved the medical report. P.W.4 is the mother in law of the prosecutrix who has turned hostile after part evidence was recorded. P.W. 5 is the father in law of the prosecutrix who has also turned hostile after part evidence was recorded. P.W. 6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers, who have investigated the crime. Aside from proving the FIR, recovery of clothes and the Doctor's report the prosecution has produced the C.A's report as Exhibit 38 to prove that the accused committed offence under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) The prosecutrix lived with her husband and 2 children. Her husband was a rickshaw driver. The accused were known to her as they lived in her neighbourhood. It is her evidence that on 5 th September 2005 at about 2 a.m when her husband was away at work on the rickshaw she heard a noise from her window. She woke up, she saw a hand in the window. She felt that her husband had returned home. She opened the door. 2 persons being the two accused came in and tried to shut the door. She knew them as they were residing in the same area. She identified the accused before the Court. She tried to shout, but Appellant No.2 pressed her mouth with a banian. They took her near a wooden rack. The Appellant No.1 brought a mat and put it on the ground. He fell on her and Appellant No.2 put his legs on her hands and pressed her mouth. Appellant No.1 removed his pant and laid on her person. He removed her saree and her nicker and inserted his penis in her vagina. He kissed her and pressed her breast. He penetrated his penis in her vagina 4 to 5 times and after discharge of his semen he stood up and threatened her that if she disclosed the incident he would kill her. Then both the Appellants ran away.