SINDHU SUKHEDEO WAGHMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by 3rd Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge at Sangli in Sessions case No. 133 of 2001. By the said judgment and order dated 20-11-2003, the appellant accused was convicted of the offences punishable under section 376 of the i. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer RI for six months. The accused was further convicted for having committed an offence under section 366 r/w section 34 and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,00/ - was imposed and in default to suffer RI for three months. The accused No. 1 was further convicted under section 363 r/w section 34 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer R. I. for three months. The accused No. 2 was convicted for offence punishable under sections 366, 363 r/w section 34 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer R. I. for five years and three years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 500/- on each count and in default to suffer R. I. for six months and three months respectively.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused used to visit the house of bayakka P. W. No. 2. There, he met Sangeeta P. W. No. 5. The prosecution case is that the accused tried to seduce the prosecutrix and tried to persuade her to elope with him. However, the prosecutrix did not pay any heed to the sexual overtorge of the accused. The prosecution case is that the accused No. 2 used to instigate the prosecutrix to have a love affair with Siddhu, accused no. 1. When Bayakka came to know about these facts, she did not allow the prosecutrix to go out of the house.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that on 16th May, 2001 on one occasion, the prosecutrix was allowed to leave the house to graze she buffaloes. At 12. 30 p. m. when Bayakka returned home, she found that the prosecutrix was not in the house. She also came to know that an amount of Rs. 10. 00/- was missing. She therefore, suspected that the accused had induced and kidnapped the prosecutrix. She therefore went to the Police Station on 17th May, 2001 and lodged the F. I. R. Accordingly, an offence was registered under sections 363, 366 r/w 34 of the I. P. C. The prosecution case is that on 16th May, 2001 when the prosecutrix was alone in the house, the accused No. 1 came to her house with accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 came to her house with accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 and accused No. 1 seduced the prosecutrix to leave the house and take with her an amount of Rs. 8,000/- out of Rs. 10,000/- which was in the house. Accordingly, prosecutrix was taken to the s. T. stand and from there she was taken to Sangli in the S. T. bus at Sangli. She was taken to a hair dresser and then to a movie and in the evening, the accused along with the prosecutrix went to Pritam Lodge where accused No. 1 had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on two occasions. He thereafter took the prosecutrix to the house of his uncle. On the same day, the mother of accused No, 1 informed the mother of the prosecutrix that the accused No. 1 had taken the prosecutrix to Jath. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 19th May, 2001. She examined by Dr. Kamble and thereafter an offence under section 376 was registered and the accused were arrested. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the accused Nos. 1 and 2.