PRAKASH RAGHUNATH GANVIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Prakash Raghunath Ganvir was tried for offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A, 323 and 376 of I. P. C. on the allegation that on 1-2-1996 at about 2. 00 p. m. at Vadali Gitti Khadan, Amravati he induced the prosecutrix - Chhaya d/o Ramdas Surjuse aged - seven years, without consent of her parents on false assurance of giving oranges and money with the intention that she may be forced to illicit intercourse also committed rape on her and at the same time voluntarily caused hurt to her. THE learned Second Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Amravati convicted the appellant of the offences under sections 323, 363, 366-A and 376 of I. P. C. in Sessions trial No. 698/97 by her judgment and order passed on 17-11-1998 and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one month for offence under section 323 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. for one month, for offence under section 363, I. P. C. sentenced to suffer R. I. for 6 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to suffer R. I. for one month and for offence under section 366-A and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 600/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for 3 months for offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned Sessions Judge also granted set off for the period in jail since 21-2-1996 against substantive sentences. THE appellant is challenging by this appeal the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that the prosecutrix Chhaya on the day of occurrence was playing at noon near her house when the appellant came there and on giving assurance to give her oranges and money took her near the quarry and there he removed her under garments and committed rape on her. Her frock and underwear were wet with blood. Appellant left her there and went away. Some persons who were present in the vicinity had brought the prosecutrix when they found her weeping. One Nargale (P. W. 6) who as residing in the same locality noticed that there was blood on the frock of Chhaya. She therefore, accompanied by some other ladies, took Chhaya and they all were proceeding to the police station. When they crossed some distance, the sister of Chhaya came there and she had taken her sister.

(3.) BEFORE the Special Judge the appellant was tried on the charge vide Exhibit 2. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial. At the trial prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses including the prosecutrix Chhaya, Manisha (P. W. 12), Ambika (P. W. 8), Kantabai (P. W. 2), Dr. Manjusha Boke (P. W. 4), Special Executive Magistrate Shrikrushna Kende and Uttamrao Marotkar (P. W. 13) the then Police Station Officer attached to Frezorpura Police Station who carried out investigation in the matter. Learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of prosecutrix Chhaya on the point of commission of rape on her which stood corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. Manjusha Boke (P. W. 4 ). She also accepted evidence of witness Ambika and Manisha coupled with evidence of Special Executive Magistrate Shrikrushna Kende on the point of identification of the appellant as the person who committed rape, circumstantial evidence as to finding of human blood and semen of blood Group "o" on the clothes of prosecutrix coupled with findings of blood group "o" of the blood of the appellant was incriminating a circumstance. The trial court also accepted the evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate as regards the confessional statement made by the appellant, though the appellant has retracted the same. So the trial court has reached to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence he was charged with and finding him guilty for the said offence, the trial court convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. Hence this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence.