PINTU Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II Nashik in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2011 vide Judgment and order dated 28/12/2011. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows. The prosecutrix herein was married in 2004 and was residing with her husband at Kasabepada. Her in-laws were residing on the agricultural farm Bhanasmet. On 26/09/2010, at about 7.00 am, she had gone to the agricultural farm for carrying out agricultural operations. At about 5.00 pm, she had taken leave from her mother in law and had informed her that she was going home. That Walu Badade was also going in the same direction and therefore, her mother-in-law asked her to go with him. On the way they met Pintu i.e. present appellant who invited Walu to have some cucumbers. Both of them had stopped, however, the prosecutrix proceeded further. While she was passing from front of the farm of Balwant Bendkule, the accused followed her, approached her, pulled the basket from her head and forcibly took her to a spot near a tree at about 5.30 pm. He ravished her and threatened her of dire consequences in the eventuality she disclosed about it to anybody. The prosecutrix returned to the house of her in-laws at Bhanasmeth and narrated the incident to them. Her in-laws then went to the Police Patil Somnath Bhadade along with her and then they went to Harsul Police Station and lodged a report on the basis of which, crime No. 34 of 2010 was registered against the accused on 27/09/2010 at about 4.15 pm. The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination to civil hospital Nashik. Investigation was set in motion. The accused was arrested on 15/10/2010. He was in custody till 23/06/2011. He was then taken into custody after conviction on 28/12/2011. The investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

(2.) P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the Court that she had got married about an year before the incident. That the incident had occurred during Pitrupaksh. The incident had occurred in the land of one Walu Balwant. In her examination-in-chief she has deposed in consonance with her first information report. That she has proved the contents of the F.I.R. which is at exhibit 31. She has specifically stated that accused had shut her mouth and therefore, she could not raise any cry. That her red and green coloured bangles were broken. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the police patil of the village is her close relative and also the co-brother of her father-in-law. Her maternal aunt Laxmibai is the wife of police patil. The first wife of police patil had contested elections for Sarpanch against the maternal cousin of accused and that the accused was campaigning for rival party. That her allegation that Walu had gone with the accused to have cucumbers and that the accused had come running from behind and shut her mouth, that she was dragged near a tree are all in the nature of an omission. The prelude to the incident is a material omission. In fact, P.W. 3 Walu was in close proximity and could have rescued her.

(3.) P.W. 2 Kashinath Khode is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. On the date of incident he had gone to Harsul. He returned at 6.00 pm and at that time, except his daughter Malabai, nobody was at home. His daughter had informed him that prosecutrix had gone to Waghere and therefore, he went to Harsul Police Station at 10.00 pm. That they waited there till the officer came on the next day at about noon. In the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he does not remember as to whether the statement was read over to him by the police.