MANESH MADUSUDAN KOTIYAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one week in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2010 by Additional Sessions Judge, Boriwali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai. Hence, this Appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:

(2.) In fact, the entire case rests upon the substantial evidence of P.W. 2 Smita who happens to be the complainant. She has deposed before the Court as per her narration in the first information report. She has deposed in her examination in chief that when she met the accused at Boriwali Station alongwith her mother, the accused had expressed his willingness to marry her. She has admitted that in March, 2010 she had suspected that she had conceived pregnancy. The doctor had informed her that she was carrying pregnancy of about 4 months. Upon learning about her pregnancy the accused had told her that the divorce petition is pending in the court and therefore, they should wait for 3 months to get married. He had also assured her that he would marry her after obtaining divorce from his first wife. On 27th March, 2010, he had received a phone call from her. However, he gave evasive answers and therefore, Smita was constrained to approach M.H.B. Colony Police Station.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination, she has categorically deposed that when the accused proposed to her she had not made any attempts to enquire about him. She has disclosed this fact to her mother after one month. In the cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement before the police. In the first information report she had not expressed any coercion on the part of the accused. Instead, she has stated that he had lured her and they had sexual intercourse and thereafter, they both returned to their respective homes. The contradiction is marked as portion marked "A".