SUNIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sunil Dashrath Gawde and accused No.2 Anandrao Lakhhu Usendi were chargesheeted by Dhanora Police of District Gadchiroli for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 323 read with Section 34, 354 read with Section 34, 506 read with Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of trial, both of them have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 354 read with Section 34, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment imposed on the appellant and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code is rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.1000/ each. For the offences punishable under Sections 354 read with Section 34, 323 read with Section 34 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, three months and two years respectively. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The incident in question had occurred on the night intervening between 29th July, 2009 and 30th July, 2009 at village Rangi within the jurisdiction of Dhanora Police Station. There is one Ashram School at village Rangi, which is known as Government Middle School (Ashram School). The complainant P.W.10Pushpa Gopalrao Dhakate was working as a Teacher in the said Ashram School. P.W.11Baby Devdatta Dhait was working as a Superintendent and P.W.12Dumantai Jumnake was also working as a Teacher. The staff quarters of these witnesses and other staff members of the staff were situated near the Ashram School, at Rangi itself. Headmaster of the Ashram School had his house in the village Rangi. The said Rangi village, it appears, was Naxlite affected area.

(3.) It is the case of prosecution that the appellant, accused No.2 and the absconding accused were affiliated to a Naxlite group. A call for observing bandh was given by the said Naxlite group on 28th July, 2009. It appears that the Ashram School did not follow the bandh call given by the so called Naxlites. Appellant Sunil Gawde, accused No.2 and absconding accused, therefore, wanted to know from the Teachers and Superintendent of Ashram School as to why the bandh was not followed on 28th July, 2009. They had called a meeting in forest of the teachers and other staff members of the school to find out the reasons for not following the bandh call. A message was left in the hostel that such a meeting was called. Two to three boys of the Ashram School had gone to the house of Shri Waghmare to inform him about the said meeting. However, Shri Waghmare did not wake up. P.W.16Mohanlal Jazkkanwar, who was staying at the adjoining quarters, woke up and made enquiries from the boys. The boys told him that a meeting had been called at forest. P.W.16Mohanlal Jazkkanwar, therefore, called P.W.11Baby Dhait, the Superintendent of Ashram School. Shri Waghmare was also called. P.W.16Mohanlal Jazkkanwar, Shri Waghmare and P.W.11Baby Dhait visited campus of Ashram School. Watchman Shri Shriram Kulmethe also woke up and accompanied them. At that time, appellant Sunil Gawde was standing there and he enquired from the Watchman as to why bandh was not followed on 28th July, 2009. Despite the affirmative reply by the Watchman, he was beaten by the appellant by means of a stick. Shri Waghmare was directed to call the Headmaster. Headmaster Shri Sonekar came on the spot where Shri Waghmare and others were present. In the meantime, appellant had taken away the Superintendent P.W.11Baby Dhait towards forest area and wanted to have a sexual intercourse with her. On repeated refusal on the part of P.W.11Baby Dhait, the appellant abandoned the idea of committing rape. However, he had used criminal force against P.W.11Baby Dhait with an intention to outrage her modesty. Cell phones of the staff members present on the spot were taken away by the appellant. The appellant had also demanded Petrol from them. Petrol was provided to the appellant by the staff members present on the spot.