STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DATTATRAYA @ DATTA AMBO ROKADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Confirmation Case No. 6 of 2013 arises out of the Reference made by the learned Special Judge (PCFSO Act) Thane in Special Case No. 1 of 2013 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused Dattatraya @ Datta Ambo Rokade. By judgment and order dated 07.06.2013 in Special Case No. 1 of 2013, the learned Special Judge (PCFSO Act) Thane convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same judgment and order, the accused was also convicted under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 377, 363, 364, 367 and 201 of IPC. The accused was also convicted under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 and Section 5(h),(i),(k),(l) and (m) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act (in short, 'PCFSO Act'). For the offence under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 377 of IPC and offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 and offence under Section 5(h),(i),(k), (l) and (m) punishable under Section 6 of PCFSO Act, the accused was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. No separate sentence was awarded for the offences under Sections 363, 364, 367 and 201 of IPC. As sentence of death was imposed on the accused, the learned Special Judge made a reference to this Court for confirmation of death sentence. The appellant-original accused being aggrieved by the very same judgment and order, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2013. As both the confirmation case and the appeal are directed against the very same judgment and order, hence, both these matters were heard together and decided together.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:-

(3.) Charge came to be framed against the accused under Sections 363, 364, 367, 377, 302, 201 and 376 in the alternative 376(2)(f) of IPC. Charge was also framed under Sections 3 r/w Section 4 of PFCSO Act and Section 5(h) (i) (k) (l) & (m) read with Section 6 of the PCFSO Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated in paragraph 1 above.