DILIP MACHINDRA JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant/original accused against the judgment and order, passed on29-8-2003, by the III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2003, wherein the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section376 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. Two Thousand, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE incident, which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellant, alleging that he committed rape on the prosecutrix, took place on14-12-2002. THE prosecutrix, who was aged about nine years, is daughter of complainant Bhamabai Jadhav (PW2 ). It is admitted that prosecutrix is handicapped since birth and she is also deaf and dumb. It is alleged that on14-12-2002 at about3. 00 p. m. , while the complainant along with her daughters including the prosecutrix were in their house, the appellant who is admittedly nephew of complainant, visited her house, after having visited wife of his brother who was admitted in hospital of Dr. Arole. After taking meals, the complainant and other members of the family, the appellant went upstairs where the prosecutrix was lying on the cot. THE complainant and her daughters were taking meals and after short while, they heard shouts of appellant Dilip, calling the complainant, saying, "bai, Bai, see what has happened to Priti". As complainant and her daughters went upstairs in the room, they saw that Priti was lying in supine position on the cot and there were blood stains and she was bleeding profusely from her private part and that her nicker was lying by her side. As they went up and near the victim, the accused immediately ran away from there and left the house of complainant on coming down stairs. THE complainant, initially took her daughter Priti to Rural Hospital, Jamkhed, as she was having server bleeding. THE doctor advised them to take Priti in Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. THEreafter, complainant took Priti to Dr. Arole at Jamkhed. He also advised to take Priti at Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar immediately as there were serious injuries on her private part and it had been ruptured. THErefore, immediately the complainant took Priti to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar and admitted there where she was treated by the doctor.

(3.) AT the trial, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses including complainant Bhamabai (PW2), Prabhakar (PW1) panch witness, Dr. Sandhya Chavan (PW3) who examined the prosecutrix and issued certificate Exh. 21, Urmila (PW4) sister of the prosecutrix and P. S. I Waghmare (PW7) who carried investigation in the matter. The trial court, accepting the evidence of prosecutrix and her daughter Urmila (PW4), with medical evidence of Dr. Sandhya Chavan (PW3) and the circumstance that the appellant had visited the house of complainant on the day of occurrence and immediately after the incident was revealed even at the behest of the appellant, the appellant, on seeing the complainant and her daughter having come upstairs, ran away, found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the appellant has committed rape on the victim, a minor girl, as she then, and consequently convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. It is made clear that while recording conviction and sentence, the trial court has ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs. Two Thousand, if paid, Rs. One Thousand be given to the victim girl Priti Jadhav through her mother by way of compensation after the period of appeal is over. Hence this appeal to challenge the order of conviction and sentence, as also the order of payment of compensation to the victim. That is how the complainant is also made party respondent in this appeal.