SIDHANT ANANDRAO SONKAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.362 of 2021, registered with Vimantal (Airport) Police Station, Nanded, District Nanded, for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (n) and 313 of IPC.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. A. R. Mokashi holding for Mr. U. M. Maske Patil for applicant and learned APP Mr. B. V. Virdhe for respondent-State.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the informant. The prosecutrix is a major girl and it appears that she had sexual relationship with the applicant voluntarily. When the major girl had consented for the sexual relationship, then it will not attract offence punishable under Sec. 376 of IPC. The informant has concealed several facts intentionally. She had come down to Mumbai where the applicant is serving in Fire Brigade and staying in Mumbai itself. She had stayed at his home once and on another occasion it was in Nalasopara in a lodge. She has tried to pretend that she had not consented or she had not gone to Mumbai on the say of the applicant, rather on the say of the prosecutrix the applicant had gone to Nanded, is her say. Another fact to be noted is that from April 2020 when it was the pandemic situation, the applicant who services were very much needed and he could not have left his headquarter, it is hard to believe that he would have gone to meet her in Ganraj Lodge almost every month and had physical relations with her by promising to marry. In fact, it is the case of the applicant that though the applicant was knowing the first informant and is accepting that he had physical relationship with the prosecutrix, but the relations got strained later on. Applicant had caused transfer of some of Rs.5.00 lakh to one Mandeep Kaur from Nanded on the say of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix had given assurance that the said amount would be returned to him. However, after several months when he could not get the amount, he asked the prosecutrix to get back the amount and at that time there were altercations between them and prosecutrix refused to pay the amount. The applicant has produced on record his bank statement to show that he had caused the amount transfer in the name of said Mandeep Kaur. The applicant has also produced on record the attendance sheet from April 2020 to show that he has not left the headquarter as per the contention of the informant. It is further stated that the prosecutrix got pregnant, and thereafter, on the say of applicant, his brother had provided certain tablets which caused miscarriage, but there is no evidence to support the contention of the prosecutrix.