LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-253

TALIB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 27, 2022
Talib Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted under Sec. 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and convicted under Sec. 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He is also convicted under Sec. 506 of Inaian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

(3.) The incident took place by 11.00 in the morning on 15/5/2015. The father (PW-1) of the prosecutrix had left the house for work by 9.00 in the morning. Her brother and sister had gone to fetch water. Her mother (PW-2) was taking bath. The prosecutrix went to 'Shivshankar Industries' area for answering nature's call. She was about to remove her pant when the appellant came from backside. He covered her mouth. Gave 2-3 slaps and threatened to kill if she shouted. He, then, dragged the prosecutrix towards a dilapidated wall. Made her fall down. Removed her nicker and committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix, thereafter, returned to the house. She shared with her mother what had happened with her. As her father was busy in work, he came home by 6.00 p.m. He was informed of the incident. Then, all of them went to the M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station. The prosecutrix lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R.) Exh.27, alleging the appellant to have had committed rape of her. It is her case that she was 15 years of age.