BAPURAO NARAYAN CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Shri. Dhote, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1.

(2.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated16.8.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim whereby appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section376 (2) (a) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of rupees five thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months.

(3.) SHRI. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellant, states that the prosecution evidence brought on record is totally insufficient to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence charged. It is submitted that in the instant case, evidence of prosecutrix does not connect the accused with the crime in question. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was neither acquainted with the accused nor known to the accused. Though identification parade is alleged to have been conducted by the prosecution, however, the Officer, who had conducted the identification parade has not been examined and, therefore, prosecution cannot take advantage, if any, in this regard.