DHARMARAJ DAGDU GANPATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for three months in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1998 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri vide judgment and order dated 18.12.1998. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution has examined the prosecutrix as PW-1. PW-2 Vidya Karambelkar is the mother of the prosecutrix and PW-3 Raghav Bagwe is the Investigating Officer. PW-1 Sanjivani had deposed before the Court about the incident. She has stated that her date of birth is 20.8.1980. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix was a bright student and she always stood first or second in her class since 8th Std. She has also admitted that even after the first incident, she continued to study at the residence of the accused although she had felt awkward. She has further stated that till May 1996, nobody had suspected that she was carrying pregnancy. Her mother had also not suspected. She had not disclosed anything to her mother till she was taken to Dr. Mrs. Joshi. She has further confirmed the portion marked "A" in her statement that she did not wish to lodge any complaint. She has further admitted that a news was flashed in daily "Ratnagiri Times" dated 21.6.1996 before lodging the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix has not placed on record any contemporaneous record to show that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 20.8.1980. The reliance can be placed on the statement of the prosecutrix herself. It is clear that the prosecutrix was passing through tan adolescent stage and therefore she must have been infatuated by the teacher. It is true that as a teacher the appellant could not have taken advantage of her innocence. The very fact that she was a meritorious student she had no reason to worry about the danger of the teacher's threat of being given less marks. In any case, it would be incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that the appellant had ravished her sometime in October 1995. There is no medical evidence. There was no DNA test and more important fact is that the prosecutrix had stated that she had no allegation against the appellant as she holds herself responsible for the incident.

(3.) PW-2 Vidya Karambelkar is the mother of the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the Court that in the month of April 1996, she realized that the prosecutrix was not having her menses regularly and therefore she enquired with her. The prosecutrix did not respond. She therefore took her to Dr. Joshi who examined her and informed PW-2 that the prosecutrix was 8 months' pregnant. Thereafter, she had insisted upon her daughter to disclose the identity of the person. However, the prosecutrix had not informed her but she had written the name of the accused on a piece of paper. Thereafter, PW-2 had admitted her in a reception home at Sawantwadi where she gave birth to a female child, but died subsequently. She has admitted in the cross examination that PW-1 had indicated to her only by writing on a piece of paper. The piece of paper on which she had written the name of the appellant was not handed over to the police. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecutrix had disclosed the identity of the appellant either at the time of admission in the hospital or after she gave birth to the child on 10.6.1996.