SUDHAKAR RAMA ALAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by Sudhakar s/o. Rama Alam, the appellant herein, challenging the judgment and order passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli on22-7-2003 in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2001, wherein he was convicted for the offences u/ss. 376, 363, 506-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half month for the offence punishable u/s. 363 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable u/s. 506-I of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Set off granted to the appellant for a period which he has undergone.

(2.) THE incident which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellant took place on the night of 15-11-2001 by the side of Devalmari Road in Tahsil-Aheri within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Aheri. THE appellant is resident of village Vyankatraopetha. Victim (P.W.7), who was below 15 years of age is daughter of Nanayya Chowdhary (P.W.9) - a resident of village Indaram. THE appellant was at some time in the past cultivating the land of Nanayya on half share basis. As such he was acquainted with the family of Nanayya. Admittedly, on the evening and night of 15-11-2001, the prosecutrix and her mother were invited to attend some religious rites and performance of pooja and accordingly, the prosecutrix, accompanied by her mother, had been to the house of the appellant at night. After the pooja was over, the mother of prosecutrix alone left the house of the appellant for going back to her house while the victim stayed back for some time at the house of the appellant as there was entertainment programme of singing songs and dancing. After that program was concluded by about23. 00 hours, the appellant alone proceeded to her house. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant followed the prosecutrix on his bicycle and told her that he would reach her home as the prosecutrix alone should not go at such odd hours of night. THE victim, believing the words of the appellant, accompanied him on his bicycle for returning to her house. THE appellant, however, after going some distance on the bicycle, abruptly changed the route and instead of taking the bicycle towards the house of the prosecutrix, turned it towards village Devalmari. THE victim asked the accused as to where he was taking her instead of going to her house. But, then, the appellant threatened her saying that she should not raise shouts, otherwise he would throttle her and throw her into the well. THE victim on account of these threats became frightened. THE appellant, after passing some distance and crossing one rivulet, stopped his bicycle, took the victim to the road side, made her fall down on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her. After having committed rape on her, the appellant almost threatened her saying that she should not disclose to anybody, otherwise she would suffer dire consequences. THEn he brought her on the bicycle towards village Muttapur and made her to stay near the rivulet of village Muttapur. He also stayed with her on that night at that place.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was of denial and false implication. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all ten witnesses including Police Patil Laxminarayan Raut (P. W.1), Victims uncle Hanumantu Chowdhary (P.W.2), Bapu Atram (P.W.3) - a person who attended the meeting in the village, Dr. Naresh Madavi (P.W.4), Dr. Malik (P.W.5), Dr. Sadhna (P.W.6) - who examined the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix and Victim (P.W.7), Habiba Sheikh (P.W.8) - who was then the Head Mistress of the Primary School where the prosecutrix was educated, Nanayya Chowdhary (P.W.9) and Chandrakant Sugandhi (P. W.10) - Investigating Officer. After recording the evidence, the appellant was also examined u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the evidence and the circumstances against him. He contended that the persons in the village, who were on enemical terms with him, have involved him falsely in this case. The trial Court, after considering the evidence and submissions of the counsel for the appellant and the prosecutrix, rejected the defence of the accused of false implication. He accepted the evidence of prosecutrix, her father Nanayya and uncle Hanumantu and medical evidence and concluded that the prosecutrix was a minor girl below 12 years of age on the date of occurrence and that she was lured by the appellant from his house on that night on the pretext of reaching her to her house and then taking her to the road side, after crossing the rivulet, holding threats to cause alarm to her life, committed rape on her. Consequently, the appellant-accused was found guilty of the offences u/ss. 376, 363 and 506-I of the Indian Penal Code and was accordingly sentenced as stated earlier. Hence, this appeal.