RAJU @ KIRAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are being decided by this common judgment since the challenge therein is to one and the same judgment and order dtd. 30/11/2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Special Case No.108/2013, whereby the appellants in these appeals have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376-D read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years each and fine of Rs.2000.00 each, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and fine of Rs.500.00 each respectively. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and one month respectively.

(2.) The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeals, are as under :-

(3.) P.W.1 A lodged the F.I.R. (Exh.198) at Mohadinagar Police Station on 30/9/2015. Crime vide C.R. No.100/2013 was registered. Additional Superintendent of Police Chandrakant (P.W.19) was entrusted with the investigation of the crime. The appellants came to be arrested. All of them and the victim were medically examined. Clothes on their person at the time of commission of the crime were taken charge of under various panchanamas drawn in the presence of panch witnesses. Their blood samples were obtained. The seized clothes and blood samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for D.N.A. profiling. Cell phones with the aid of which the crime was videographed were taken charge of. Those were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Her school record was obtained in proof of her age. Statements of persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. Test identification parade of the appellants was held. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were proceeded against by filing a charge sheet. The trial Court framed the charge (Exh.13). The appellants pleaded not guilty. Their defence was of false implication.