RAMDAS SATTUJI DHABEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor the respondent-State.

(2.) THE criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 4-2-2002, passed by the Second Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 1996, whereby the present appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00, in default, simple imprisonment for three months.

(3.) MR. Daga, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the place, where the prosecution had suggested that the alleged rape has taken place, is near the busy road and at the relevant time, lot of people were going and coming from the said road and, therefore, it is not possible for the accused to commit rape at such a place which is near the busy road. It is contended that the entire case of the prosecutrix is concocted and fabricated and, therefore, the same cannot be believed. It is further contended that there is no corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix in respect of the act of rape by the accused, except the version of the prosecutrix, which also is not believable and does not inspire confidence. It is submitted that the witness P. W. 6 Shivdas, to whom the prosecutrix Nagubai appeared to have disclosed that the accused removed her clothes and committed the act of rape, immediately after the alleged incident, has turned hostile and, therefore, his evidence is of no consequence either to the accused or to the prosecution.