UTTAM PANDHARI TIDKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for rape of his own daughter under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. In addition to that he was also tried for threatening to kill her if she disclosed the same to any one and was charged under section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution had in all examined 11 witnesses in support of the charge. The trial Court after scrutinising the evidence led by the prosecution accepted the prosecution case and found the appellant guilty for the offences under sections 376 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R. I. for one year. He was also convicted under section 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R. I. for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was in custody in connection with the said case from 16-10-1997 and the same was set off in terms of section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal.

(3.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant along with the prosecutrix P. W. 2 Kusum and others had gone to work in the field of Pralhad Tikar Patil. At about 5 p. m. others who were working went away from the field and the appellant asked the prosecutrix to collect wood from nullah. When she went to collect fuel sticks from the nullah, the appellant caught hold of her hair, fell her down, uplifted her saree and committed sexual intercourse with her. The appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident to any one, otherwise he would kill her. She returned back to the house along with the appellant at about 6 p. m. The appellant went for taking drinks and after taking meals again went away. The prosecutrix did not reveal the incident in the presence of the appellant on account of fear and after he went she related the incident to her mother. Her mother called a number of persons before whom also the prosecutrix narrated the incident. The complaint was lodged with the police, the prosecutrix was medically examined, the clothes on her person as also the paijama which the appellant was wearing at the time of the incident were attached. They were sent to chemical analyser, who found that the petticoat was stained with blood and also semen stains ranging from 2 to 3 cms. in diameter located in the middle portion, the paijama of the appellant was also found to be stained with blood on one leg middle portion as also it had one semen stain of about 3 cm. in diameter located in the middle portion. The appellant stated that he was falsely implicated on account of inimical relations with his wife and on account of the fact that the brother of his wife is Superintendent of Police.