SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the accused who were tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 (g) and under Section 323 nw. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, furtherance to First Information Report dated 29/7/2001 by the learned First Ad hoc Addi. Sessions Judge, Bhandara. The Trial resulted into conviction of all the accused under both the Sections for which they were charged and were sentenced to suffer R. I. for 10 years each for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) of I. P. C. and a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 with R. I. for 2 months in default of pay-ment of fine. Separate sentence for offence under Section 323 of I. P. C. with fine of Rs. 500/- is also awarded. This is the judgment which is challenged in the present appeal.

(2.) THE story as is revealed from the First Information Report is that the Prosecutrix Satyasheela had visited the village Shahapur, the place of her cousin Tarabai. According to her, three accused persons Sudhakar Sukhdeo Ramteke, Sunil Udebhan Chauhan and Parmesh-war Sukhdeo Ramteke committed on her acts of rape at three different places first being at the house of Mayabai Meshram, Second in a shop and third in the house Sudhakar. The acts of rape narrated by the prosecutrix are in the sequence namely the first by Sudhakar singly while second by all the accused and third by Parmeshwar singly. The duration of the incidents that has been reported is after 00. 45 hours and some time thereafter. The police complaint has been lodged during day time i. e. following noon. The victim was referred to the Medical Exa-mination and the police called for Medical Report in the form of question and ans-wer. The questions referred to police at Exh. 28 and the Medical report is at Exh. 40. While the Out Door Patient note about the examination and prescriptions given by the Duty Medical Officer is at Exh. 41. The questions referred to the Medical examination were:

(3.) THE prosecution filed a charge-sheet consequent upon completion of the investigation and the learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge in relation to the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) as well as under Section 323 nw. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case proceeds in the background that the prosecutrix is a married woman of 32 years of age, having two children, while the accused are of the age of 29, 26 and 22 years respectively. There exists evidence of sexual intercourse and the case, therefore, centres around the proof of consent for the sexual intercourse.