SANDEEP SUBHASH KUNGULWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Appeals are directed against conviction of the Appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month on each of the two counts imposed upon the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur upon conclusion of Sessions Case No.270 of 1992.

(2.) FACTS which are material for deciding these two Appeals are as under :-

(3.) CONSIDERING the evidence given by the prosecutrix herself, it cannot be said that appellant Shivakumar or any other appellant had enticed her or had made her leave custody of her parents on any promise to marry. The learned Counsel for the appellants rightly pointed out that the Certificate issued by the Medical Officer after examination of the prosecutrix clearly shows that there was no sexual intercourse and her hymen was intact which should testify to the character of the appellant Shivakumar. It is not clear as to why the learned Judge should have, in the face of categoric admissions of the prosecutrix, chosen to convict the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.