AVTAR HARIPAD BISWAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused No. 1 and 2 being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanbad dated14/2/2003 convicting the appellant No. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section376, 354, 328 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and further directing accused No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to P. W.1 Sunita d/o Ashok Mane and Rs. 1,00,000/- to P.W.2. Sangita d/o Ashok Mane, filed present appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the present case is some what unique and unusual. It is case of the prosecution that Ashok Mane father of the P. W.1 & 2 was residing in a rented premises at Bhoom, District Osmanabad, owned by one Dilip Doke, along with his family members including accused No. 2 Saroja, P. W.1 Sunita, P.W.2 Sangita, P.W.5 Kamal and two sons namely Dada and Vishnu, some where in the year 1996. THE present accused No. 1 who is a medical practitioner was also having his dispensary in front of the house of Dilip Doke at Bhoom. Saroja accused No. 2 is real sister of the P. W.1 & 2 and elder daughter of the P.W.5. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1, who was practising at Bhoom as Medical Practitioner having his Hospital in front of the house of Dilip Doke, developed illicit intimacy with Saroja i. e. Accused No.2. P.W.5 and her husband Ashok Mane to avoid further complications settled marriage of Saroja with the accused No. 1 somewhere in the year 1996. THE accused No. 1 thereafter started construction of his hospital near S. T. stand Bhoom and started residing near S. T. Stand along with accused No. 2 He constructed a building wherein on ground floor he started dispensary while first floor is being used for residence. When the marriage of the accused No. 2 was performed with the accused No. 1 in the year 1996, P. W. No. 1 Sunita was hardly aged about13 to 14 years and she was taking education in 7th standard while Sangita P.W.2 was taking education in 4th standard. On account of relations between the parties the accused No. 1 and 2 used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and P.W.5 Kamal and the family members of the P.W.5 also used to visit the house of accused. THE distance between the residence of P.W.5 is hardly a walking distance and one may reach within 10 to 15 minutes from the said house to the dispensary.

(3.) SO far as P.W.2 Sangita is concerned who is younger sister of the accused No. 2 and P. W.1, in 1996 was taking education in 4th standard. The accused No. 1 and 2 were having small child aged about3 years approximately and the accused used to call P.W.2 to their house or dispensary to look after the child. It is further alleged that the accused No. 1 and 2 insisted Sangita to stay at their house at night time. She accordingly stayed during the night time accused No. 1 said P.W.2 that her breast are small and therefore, he will give some treatment so as to develop her breast. He accordingly pressed her breast. The P.W.2 disclosed this particular aspect to the accused No. 2 and at that time the accused No. 2 started laughing saying that sister of the wife is half wife and she also pressed her breast. It is further alleged that thereafter accused No. 1 gave injection with a view to develop breast and as a result there was pus formation. She thereafter got burning sensation. She thereafter again approached the accused making grievance in that respect. Thereafter, some treatment was given and thereafter both the breasts were completely destroyed. Sangita P.W.2 disclosed in respect of incident to P.W.5. Ultimately, P. W.1 Sunita on6/2/2002 filed complaint before the Police station in respect of the incident, on the basis of the said complaint crime No. 7/2002 is registered for the offence under Sections 376, 354, 328 of Indian Penal Code.