SANJAY SHAMRAO KHEDIKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for rape of the prosecutrix under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, he was also tried for criminal intimidation under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had in all examined 12 witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya, vide judgment dated 27-4-2001 held the appellant guilty for the offence of rape under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer R. I. for one year. For the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer R. I. for one month. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was in custody in connection with the offences since 31-1-2000 and the benefit of set off under section 428 of Cri. P. C. was given. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentences in this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that as revealed by the prosecutrix (P. W. 1), on 30th January, 2000 she had gone to the field to collect fire wood. In between her field and that of her aunt, there are four five fields. Her aunt and nephew were also there. The prosecutrix had gone to the field of Budha for plucking beans of Lakhodi. When she was plucking the beans, the appellant came there, caught her from her waist and fell her on the ground. The appellant sat on her legs and removed her nicker. After removing her nicker, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Dhanraj (P. W. 3) came there and at that time, the appellant ran away. The prosecutrix was sitting on dhura and her aunt also came there. According to the prosecutrix, she had received injuries on her hands and legs as also on her both elbow joints and the back. According to her, the clothes she were wearing at the time of incident, were seized by the police and article No. 1 ear ring was attached by the police from the scene of offence which was pointed by her. The said articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The prosecutrix was also examined by the Medical Officer (P. W. 8 ). After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) THE case of the appellant is that he was falsely implicated. In 313 statement of the appellant recorded by the police, he stated that he had gone to his field and there he heard cry of one lady, Melo Melo and he saw Rameshwar Budhaji on dhura. Said Rameshwar had thrown something and he ran away and that lady was crying, Santosh Mi Melo. According to the appellant, he saw the prosecutrix and Santosh Mate in the field and both of them were nude. The appellant has further stated that said Santosh told him that he was having old relations with the prosecutrix and he should not disclose the fact to anyone. He also stated that, Santosh threatened him.