MAHADEO @ BAPU HANUMANT POL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month in Sessions Case No. 207 of 2008 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, vide judgment and order dated 21.7.2009. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts, which are necessary for the decision of this appeal, are as follows:-

(2.) PW-1 Jaibai Popat Adasul is the complainant who happens to be the mother of the victim. She has deposed before the Court that the date of birth of her daughter is 8.6.1993. At the time of incident, she was studying in 7th Std. in Mahatma Gandhi Vidyalaya. She has substantiated her allegations in the missing complaint and the first information report which she lodged on 29.11.2007. The first information report is marked at Exhibit 14. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the accused resides at a walking distance of half an hour from the house of the complainant. However, the complainant was not acquainted with any family members of the house of the accused. It is further elicited that after 15 days of lodging of the missing complaint, the complainant learnt that the accused was a married man. It is admitted by her in the cross-examination that on the date of the incident, the victim had left the house without intimating her mother. The parents had enquired in the school about her. They were informed that she had not attended the school on that day. PW-1 has deposed before the Court that the place from where her daughter and the accused were taken into custody consisted of about five rooms. There was no one else in the house. Her daughter had shown her the injuries on her head. The head injury was not bleeding. It is admitted by PW-1 that during the pendency of the trial, her daughter is married.

(3.) PW-2 Balu Ghadge, who was a panch has resiled from his earlier statement and has been declared hostile.