HANMANT RAMHARI GHODAKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur convicting them in Sessions Case No. 104 of 1999 under section 376 read with section 109 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine. The learned Judge also proceeded to convict accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 109 of I. P. C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is this order dated 22-9-1999 which is challenged by both the accused independently. Appeal No. 541 of 1999 is preferred by original accused No. 2-Hanmant Ghodake and Appeal No. 542 of 1999 is preferred by original accused No. 1-Bhausaheb Humbe.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that accused No. 1 committed forcible intercourse on prosecutrix without her consent and thereby committed offence punishable under section 376 of I. P. C. The accused No. 2 is said to have abated commission of this offence by reaching to the prosecutrix the gifts that accused No. 1 gave to her from time to time prior to the date of incident.

(3.) THE prosecutrix has candidly admitted in her evidence that intercourse with her consent and the accused was to marry her and therefore she waited at the place where intercourse took place. According to her she was waiting for two days for the accused to come. At that time she saw accused No. 2 loitering around.