PARMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna in Criminal Appeal No.53/2015 dtd. 21/8/2021 thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Partur dtd. 25/6/2015 in RCC No.141/2014 thereby convicting the applicant of the offence punishable under Sec. 451 of the I.P.C., sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Sec. 451 of the I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months of the offence punishable under Sec. 354-A (i) of the I.P.C.

(2.) Facts in brief are that victim lodged the report on 5/7/2014 alleging therein that on 4/7/2014 she and her grand mother in law were the only persons in their house as husband of the victim had gone to village Pokharni. Applicant/accused lives in the house adjacent to the house of the victim. On 4/7/2014 at about 8.00 pm, applicant had been to the house of the victim and inquired as to when the husband of the victim would be returning. Victim answered that her husband would not be returning in the night. It is further alleged that on 4/7/2014, victim had closed the main door of her Wada and without bolting the door from inside she and her grand mother in law went off to sleep. At about 11.00 pm the victim sensed that someone was touching her feet. Therefore, the victim woke up and found the accused/applicant sitting near her feet on her bed. Victim shouted because of which her grand mother in law woke up and she also raised shouts.Thereafter, the applicant ran away. Neighbours gathered on hearing shouts. Thereafter, the victim informed her husband telephonically about the incident. The next day morning her husband returned and thereafter she lodged the police report against the accused.

(3.) Charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty to it and claimed to be tried. His defence is of total denial. It is also his defence that he was not present at the spot of the incident.