MANGESH BABAN JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the applicant under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.191 of 2017 registered with Police Station Dahiwadi, Satara, for offences punishable under Section 376(d), 366 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that on 20th June 2017, at about 11.30 p.m., the prosecutrix was watching Television. Her great grandmother-in-law and her children aged 9 years and 6 years were sleeping. At that time, somebody knocked the door. When she opened the door, she found her cousin, namely, Maruti Nana Jadhav (A-1) along with two persons, namely, Kashya @ Kashinath Sonba Jadhav (A-2) and Mangya @ Mangesh Baban Jadhav (A-3) (present applicant). Maruti Jadhav (A-1) then asked the prosecutrix to tell aunt that Dilip would not be coming and the prosecutrix replied that she would convey the same on the next morning. Accused Maruti then started going back from there. However, prosecution alleges, out of the other two persons, one person pressed her mouth and another lifted her and took her to the field of Shankar Nana Mohite. It is further alleged that cousin of prosecutrix i.e. accused Maruti Jadhav made her lie on the ground despite her resistance and threatened her that if she raises commotion, he would kill her and thereafter forcibly ravished her. It is further alleged that the other said two persons i.e. Kashya and Mangya then lifted her and took her in the field of Vyankat Nana Mohite and there they also ravished her turn by turn and also threatened that if the incident was disclosed, they would kill her. On the next day, the prosecutrix lodged the report accordingly.

(3.) Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is no medical evidence to suggest that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault. Even the report of Chemical Analyzer does not further the case of the prosecution, in as much as, all reports are negative. According to the learned counsel, neither the statement of family members nor the neighbours were recorded. The applicant is in jail for more than four years and for all these reasons, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.