YOGESH BHAGWAN SAUNKHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter the POCSO Act) and under Ss. 376, 342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to various substantive sentences and fine maximum of which being rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of Rs.500.00 for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The FIR has been lodged by a girl stated to be aged 16 years and odd on the date of the incident. She alleges that the incident occurred on 24/11/2015 at about 2:00 pm. When she was studying in the platform in front of her house the appellant who resides across the road called her. He pulled her inside the house, closed the door, gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. He also threatened her of dire consequences. In the meanwhile her sister Namrata (PW-3) knocked at the door. He threatened the victim (PW-1) not to disclose the incident to anybody. When the door was opened Namrata (PW-3) was there and the victim (PW-1) just left without disclosing the incident. She further alleges that since she was frightened she did not disclose the incident to anybody. She could gather courage and narrated the incident to her mother Nirmala (PW-2) on 1/12/2015. Even her mother got confused as to what was to be done. She narrated the incident to victim's father and it is thereafter that on 4/12/2015 the FIR (Exhibit-44) was lodged. The offence was registered. The appellant was arrested on the same day i.e. 4/12/2015. Medical examination of the victim (PW-1) was conducted by Dr. Chaudhari (PW-6) and that of the appellant was conducted by Dr. Gadhari (PW-7). Their clothes were seized, samples were drawn those were sent for Chemical Analysis and in due course of time the charge sheet filed. The matter was committed to the Special Court. The charge was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the prosecution led its evidence. The appellant was then examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above.

(3.) The appellant's defence, as can be gathered from the tenor of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the reply given during his examination under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the effect that there was an affair between him and the victim (PW-1). But since they belong to different castes the relation was not acceptable to her family members and he has been falsely implicated after their affair was revealed.