MANGESH VITTHAL WAGHMARE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each, in default, to suffer RI for six months by judgment dated 18th March, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim delivered in Atrocity Case No. 36/2006. The appellants, however, by the same judgment, have been acquitted of the offences punishable u/ss. r/w. of the IPC and section of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.1.2006, there was a Ramlila at village Inzori, Dist. Washim. The complainant -Ku. Vidya Janrao Augale had gone to attend the said Ramlila along with her brother. There was a separate arrangement for male and female viewers of the Ramlila. Accordingly, the complainant occupied a place in the area meant for the female viewers and her brother had been sitting with male viewers. At about 10.00 p.m. she felt like going for urination. She, therefore, requested a girl sitting beside her to accompany her for urination. The said girl, however, was reluctant to go with her. The complainant, therefore, went alone. It is alleged that the appellants and one Pankaj went near the place where the appellant had gone for urination and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her one -by -one. Her mouth was gagged during the course of intercourse and as such, she could not shout. The place was surrounded by many houses. The Ramlila ground was also not away from the place of the incident. However, the complainant could not cry because her mouth was gagged. She narrated the incident to her mother after returning home. The FIR was lodged at about 12.00 noon on 27.1.2006 at Mangrulpir Police Station of District Washim. Both the appellants were arrested and were subjected to medical examination. The complainant was also sent for medical examination. The Medical Officer had not noticed any external injuries on the person of the complainant. It appears from the Medical report that Medical Officer was not able to give any definite opinion as to whether the complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse. It appears from the medical reports that though ossification test was done for determination of her age, the age had not been mentioned in the medical report. Chemical Analyser's report revealed that no semen or blood was found on the salwar, kurta and torn panty of the complainant. Neither semen or spermatozoa was detected on the vaginal swab or on the pubic hair of the complainant. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed in the Court.

(2.) WHEN the case came up for hearing, the learned trial Judge framed charge against the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. , r/w of the IPC and section of the Atrocities Act. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It appears that the boy by name, Pankaj, was placed before the Juvenile Justice Bord.

(3.) DURING the course of trial, the learned Advocate for the appellants had admitted the correctness of spot panchnama and search and seizure panchnama. He had also admitted correctness of medical examination reports of the appellants and the prosecutrix. The defence of the appellants was of total denial.