VIRENDRA DINKARRAO PILONDRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application, challenge is to the order dtd. 27/11/2021 passed below Exh.5 by learned Special Judge, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application (Exh.5) made by the applicant/accused for discharge in crime bearing No. 208/2010 for the offences punishable under Ss. 376, 493, 496 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The informant in this judgment would be referred as prosecutrix. On the report lodged by the prosecutrix on 18/7/2010, a crime bearing No. 208/2010 was registered at Police Station, Dhantoli, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act" for short). The investigation in the crime culminated into filing of the charge-sheet. Briefly, it is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2001, the accused and the prosecutrix were preparing for competitive examination. They were residing at Nagpur. They would attend library of Pradnya Prabodhini Institute for studies. Friendship developed between them. The friendship blossomed into love affair. It is the case of the prosecutrix that the accused through a common friend by name Anita Bele, proposed her. The prosecutrix considering the age difference of seven years between her and the accused, refused the said proposal. She also refused the proposal considering that they belong to different caste. It is stated that in 2001, the accused took the prosecutrix to his village and on the way he took her to Anusaya Mata temple and there applied vermilion (sindur) on her head and declared that they are married. He further declared that they would get married after getting employment. It is stated that in December, 2000, the accused called the prosecutrix alone at Nehru Nagar, where he was residing. The accused at that time forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. After the act of intercourse, she started crying. The accused, according to the prosecutrix, promised to marry her and committed sexual intercourse with her. It is stated that after this, on number of occasions, under the promise of marriage, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her.

(3.) In the year 2005, the prosecutrix was selected as Police Sub Inspector. The accused was preparing for competitive examination. The accused, according to the prosecutrix, during this period sexually exploited her. In the year 2009, the accused was also selected as Police Sub Inspector. The accused went to Nashik for police training. The accused throughout promised the prosecutrix to marry with her. On the promise of marriage, he indulged in sexual acts with her. The prosecutrix, in December, 2009, came to know that the accused had developed intimacy with other girl. The prosecutrix with her friends went to the accused and confronted his relationship with another girl. The accused, at that time, flatly refused to marry with the prosecurrix. In the report, various places visited by them together and sexual intercourse committed by the accused with her, have been stated. The prosecutrix realized that the accused sexually exploited her under the false promise to marry her. Her consent was vitiated by false promise. She, therefore, reported the matter to the police. On the basis of her report, the crime was registered, and which ultimately culminated in filing charge-sheet.