PRASHANT MARUTI GURAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 29/11/2021 passed by the Extra Joint District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No.21/2021. There were five accused in all. The appellant was the accused No.1. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Judge vide judgment and order dtd. 29/11/2021 passed in the said case, convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default to suffer SI for six months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default to suffer SI for six months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 read with 8 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to suffer SI for three months. All those sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was granted set off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. All the accused, including the appellant, were acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable under Ss. 9 and 11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

(2.) Heard Shri Amit Mane, learned appointed Advocate for the appellant, Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for the respondent No.1-State and Shri Sushan Mhatre, appointed Advocate for the respondent No.2.

(3.) The prosecution case is that the victim in this case was born on 28/12/2004. She delivered a baby girl on 30/4/2021. Thus, on the date of delivery she was a minor. Thus, there was physical intercourse amounting to the alleged offence which resulted in birth of a child. When the child was delivered, she was admitted to a hospital. She was a minor and, therefore, the police were informed. The investigation was carried out and according to the prosecution, the appellant was the father of her child. The accused Nos.2 to 5 were respective parents of the victim and the appellant. Both the families got together and marriage between the appellant and the victim was performed.