NANDKUMAR SITARAM JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (original accused) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 25/4/2008 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 376(2)(f), 324 and 354 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). For the offence punishable u/s. 376(2)(f) of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default RI for six months. For the offence punishable u/s. 324 of IPC the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default RI for six months, no separate sentence was imposed on the appellant for the offence u/s. 354 of IPC. The substantive sentences u/s. 376(2)(f) and 324 of IPC were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under;

(2.) Charge came to be framed u/s. 376(2)(f) against the appellant for committing rape on a girl below 12 years. Charge was also framed u/s. 354 and 324 of the IPC. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Najmi, the learned advocate for the appellant and Mrs. Bhonsale, the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion, that, the appellant did commit rape on a minor girl.