ASHOK SHAMRAO THAKARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted of offence under Section 376 (2) (f) read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the victim who is the daughter of accused, was reaped on 24-7-200 1 in their own house at about 5. 00 pm and the matter was reported by the victim to her mother who is examined as PW 2. The entire case depends on oral evidence of victim Sandhya and the medical evidence, viz. , the medical certificate and the oral evidence of Dr. Nidhi Bhansali who had examined the prosecutrix. The prosecution has tried to improve its case in the midst of the trial by suggesting that there were previous instances of similar occasions of rape. Barring the suggestion, there is no other material to corelate such instance.

(3.) THE prosecutrix Sandhya in very clear terms stated in her deposition that the accused forcibly made her to lay on mat; removed her nicker; committed act of rape and even gave her forcible strokes in the course of commission of offence. She also deposed that this resulted in pain. Soon after the incident, in her own version, the vagina portion was wet which she cleaned by frock which she was wearing. In the examination-in-chief, she has further stated that soon after the incident, she continued to sit in the house weeping and reported about the incident to her mother on her return to home. In the cross-examination, how-ever, the prosecutrix stated that soon after the incident, she went outside the house for riding bicycle which was hired. It is pertinent to note that before exami-ning the prosecutrix who was claimed by the prosecution to be of 11 years of age on the date of examination before the Court, understood the sanctity of oath and thereupon only the oral evidence had been recorded.