VINOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2012 viz. Vinod Malkhede has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 and also for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2012 viz. Santosh Vairagade has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) and 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the appellants were tried in Special Case No. 15 of 2010 for the above stated offences and have been convicted as stated above. The victim of the offence is a lady by name Sunanda Dashrath Zade who was aged about 40 years at the time of incident. The incident had occurred in the night intervening 10th and 11th of May, 2010. The complainant/prosecutrix is resident of village Lakkadkot in Tahsil: Rajura. She had gone to Rajura for selling vegetables in the evening of 10th May, 2010. While returning to her native place at Lakkadkot she was waiting for a bus on Bus Stand near Panchayat Samiti, Rajura. It is the case of prosecution that the appellants who were on motorcycle had offered the complainant that they would drop her at her house. Accordingly, she accompanied the appellants on the motorcycle. It is alleged that the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2012 viz. Santosh was known to the prosecutrix and he himself was driving the motorcycle. Appellant Vinod was sitting as pillion rider. As already stated, the prosecutrix had also accompanied them in response to the offer given by the appellants. Appellant Santosh stopped the vehicle near a tiles factory at Tulana. Both of them took the complainant in the factory premises. It is alleged that appellant Vinod removed clothes of the complainant and had forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant. Accused Vinod had sexually exploited the complainant for about two hours. It is also the case of prosecution that the complainant earnestly requested that she should be released or they should bring something to eat or at least provide her water. But, appellant Vinod did not leave the complainant. After some time, on the repeated requests of the complainant, both the appellants left the spot on the pretext of bringing some eatables. It is alleged that they had taken away all the clothes of the complainant from the spot. The complainant left the spot in completely naked condition. She, however, reached the hut of one Rakhabai, situated nearby the place of incident. Smt. Rekhabai offered her clothes including sari. Thereafter at about 5.00 a.m. the complainant left the house of Smt. Rekhabai for Virur and lodged report at Virur Police Station at about 10.30 a.m. Offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were registered. An offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also registered, as the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste. During the course of investigation the appellants were arrested and the motorcycle was seized. Statement of Smt. Rekhabai was recorded. The complainant was sent for medical examination and after completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against the appellant.

(2.) During the course of trial the prosecution had examined in all nine witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Sunanda is complainant/prosecutrix, P.W. 2 Dr. Poonam Nagrale had examined P.W. 1 as Medical Officer at General Hospital, Chandrapur, P.W. 3 Dr. Anita Arke was also a Medical Officer. She had examined complainant at Rajura Health Centre. P.W. 4 Smt. Rekhabai Kodape is the lady who had given shelter to the complainant immediately after the incident. P.W. 5 is one of the panch witnesses and P.W. 6 is also panch witness. P.W. 7 is the Police Officer who had recorded first information report of complainant-Sunanda. P.W. 8 is also one of the panch witnesses and P.W. 9 is Investigating Officer.

(3.) Though prosecution had examined nine witnesses in support of its case, the whole prosecution case, in fact, was based on the evidence of P.W. 1 Sunanda, P.W. 4 Rekhabai and P.W. 9 Investigating Officer.