JAYA RAMA GAUDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals which question the conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 376 r/w. Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short, "PITA"). The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2009 are original accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 704 of 2009 are original accused Nos. 5 and 6. While accused Nos. 4 to 6 have been acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of PITA, all the accused persons have been convicted for the other offences. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have also been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of PITA. They have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonments ranging from three months to seven years with fine on different counts. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under:

(2.) The learned Judge charged the appellants of offences punishable under Sections 366A, 372, 373 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of PITA. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the light of defence of false implication, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as afore-mentioned. He seems to have acquitted them of offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 372 and 373 of the IPC, though the Judgment does not explicitly so mention. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them, the appellants are before this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respective appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for short, "APP") for the State. With their help I have gone through the evidence on record.