BANDU RAMRAO MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal takes exception to the order of conviction of the appellant vide judgment dated 29-4-2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2009 has convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as the Penal Code) and has sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The appellant, however, has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, as can be gathered from the material on record, is that on 14-5-2008 at about 12 noon, the appellant came to the house of the complainant-Geeta Atram and at about 1 p.m., took her daughter "S" aged 7 years with him for giving her biscuits. At about 1.30 p.m. "S" returned home crying and on enquiry being made, she disclosed that the appellant had taken her to the Nallah of the village and had inserted his penis into her vagina. There was blood stains on the frock and underwear of "S". After arrival of the complainant's husband, a report was lodged. Crime No. 16 of 2008 was duly registered. On completion of necessary investigation and obtaining medical report, charge-sheet was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamb. The case was thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ralegaon. After receiving the charge-sheet, as offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was accordingly committed. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376(2) of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, was tried. On conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal against the conviction by the appellant.

(2.) Shri M.P. Lala, the learned Counsel appointed to represent the appellant has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed in proving its case and the appellant has been convicted merely on the basis of surmises. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the seizure of the appellant's clothes has not been duly proved. According to the learned Counsel, the appellant was falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant was entitled to be acquitted of the aforesaid offence.

(3.) On the other hand Mrs. B.H. Dangre, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 376 of the Penal Code. It is submitted that "S" who was the victim had duly identified the appellant as the person who had first taken her from her house and had thereafter committed the alleged act. It is further submitted that the medical report-Exh. 51 as well as deposition of PW-5 Dr. Shilpa clearly established the fact that the offence of rape had been committed on "S". The blood stains found on the clothes of the appellant matched with the blood group of "S" and hence, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who was guilty of committing aforesaid offence. It was, therefore, submitted that no interference was called for with the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court.