KANHOBA KRUSHNA DABHADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dtd. 5/10/2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.176/2014. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. No separate sentence is awarded for committing offence under Sec. 5(i) punishable under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :-

(3.) Based on the F.I.R., Crime No.I-58/2014 came to be registered for offence punishable under Ss. 376(A), 506 of the Indian penal Code and Ss. 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Machhindra (P.W.5), Assistant Police Inspector was entrusted with the investigation of the crime. He paid visit to the scene of offence and drew the scene of offence panchanama. He arrested the appellant. Seized the clothes which were on the person of the appellant and Anita when the incident took place. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant, a knicker came to be seized. Both the appellant and Anita were medically examined. Statements of the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. Medical examination report and the C.A. reports were obtained. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was proceeded against. The case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh.8) against the appellant. The defence of the appellant is of false implication.