GOURAV NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 29th March 2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.500 of 2013, convicting and sentencing him as stated hereinunder :

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution had not proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated at the instance of prosecutrix's grandfather, on account of a property dispute between the prosecutrix's grandfather and the appellant's father and grandfather. He further submitted that there is a delay of 13 months in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as, the alleged incidents are stated to have taken place between February 2012 to September 2012, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 9th March 2013. He further submitted that the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case of sexual assault on the prosecutrix. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has also failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time. He submitted that the prosecution has not examined Gulabi Giri, the neighbour, with whom the house key was kept, thus, belying the prosecution case that the appellant had taken the keys from Gulabi Giri and as such, there is no corroboration to the same. Learned counsel also relied on the opinion given by PW 5-Dr. Rachana Shah that, it could not be commented whether rape/sexual intercourse had taken place or not. He submitted that the prosecution evidence not being reliable, cannot be relied upon in the absence of any corroboration and that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted as gospel truth. According to the learned counsel, the prosecutrix was used as a scapegoat by her grandfather, to falsely frame the appellant because of a property dispute. He also submitted that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, rendering their evidence unreliable. He submitted that although the prosecutrix has alleged that MMS clips were taken, the mobile phone of the appellant has not been recovered and as such it is not proved that the appellant had taken any objectionable video clip.