BADASHA JAMAL MUJAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants as original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1984 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 1984 as the original accused No. 2 were tried along with three other accused persons on various charges such as under sections 342, 354, 366, 366a and 376 and section 376 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 89 of 1983 decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. The appellant No. 1 Badasha as the accused No. 1 was convicted under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The two substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appellant No. 2 as the original accused No. 3 and the appellant No. 3 as the original accused No. 4 were both convicted of the offence under section 376 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 1984 as the original accused No. 2 was convicted under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for two months. These appellants came to be acquitted of all the other remaining charges framed against them and the acquittal on those counts has not been challenged by the State in Appeal. Similarly, the acquittal of the original accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 who were fully acquitted of all the charges, framed against them, has also not come to be challenged by the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case which resulted in the trial of all these seven accused persons centres around a young virgin Jyoti, daughter of Chandrakant Pawar, a businessman residing with his family members in the L. I. C. colony at Satara. Jyoti, his daughter and the prosecutrix has been studying in a local girls school for sometime before the incident which occurred on the 11th and 12th of April, 1983 and culminated in her eventual (alleged) rescue on 13th April, 1983. All the seven accused persons are also residents of Satara. The accused No. 1 Badashaha, it appears owns a house No. 144 in the Yadav Gopal Peth locality of Satara and he is also virtually the owner of house No. 526 known as the Mujawar Wada situate in the Mangalwar Peth the property actually standing in the name of one Smt. Shama Jamal Mujawar who treats the accused No. 1 as her son. At the material time in April 1983, some of the rooms in this house No. 526 had stood let out while some others had remained vacant or had been only recently vacated by the occupant tenants. The original accused Nos. 2 and 5 were two of such tenants in two rooms. They were alleged to be prostitutes. The accused No. 6 Hamida, a nurse by profession was employed in the Chaitanya Nursing Home of one Dr. Thoke. Yet another room in the house had been let out to Ahmed Ali Attar PW-9 a manufacturer and seller of joss-sticks. He had been staying away from Satara for some time on account of his business at another place called Kudal, but had apparently returned to Satara to be present at the said premises on the 13th April, 1983. The accused No. 1 Badashah is a married person and lives in the house No. 144 along with his wife and children.

(3.) SEVENTEEN years old Jyoti was apparently a short tempered girl given to acting impulsively. There used to be frequent quarrels between herself and her mother, mostly over the insistence on the part of the mother to attend to domestic chores. She also used to feel frustrated at the strict regimen which was being required to be followed in her house. Prior to the incident dated 11th April, 1983, she had left the house on a few occasions in a fit of temper but had eventually returned home every time.