VILAS NAMDEO ROUNDAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. For 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. For 6 months vide Judgment and Order dated 27th August, 1993 by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 354 of 1882. Hence, this Appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:

(2.) On the basis of her report, Crime No. 110 of 1991 was registered at Khed Police Station against accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 341.506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on the same day. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 30th October. 1991. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 354 of 1992. The charge was framed against the accused on 30th June, 1993. The accused had pleaded innocence and had denied all the charges levelled against him. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused.

(3.) P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the court in consonance with her first information report to some extent. She has deposed before the Court that she was an indoor patient for 4 days. She had sustained injury on her cheek. She had identified the accused in the court. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that she happens to be the maternal aunt of the father of the accused and hence, the accused would be related to her as a grand son. It is pertinent to note that although she has stated in her first information report that the accused was working at Chakan in a Motor Garrage, in the cross-examination, she has feigned ignorance about the service of the accused. It was suggested to her that she has borrowed loan from the accused at the time of marriage of her eldest daughter and therefore, the relations between the accused and the prosecutrix are strained. However, the said suggestion is denied. The prosecutrix has proceeded to state on oath that although they were resident of the same village, they never visited the house of each other. She has denied the suggestion that the relations between parties are strained. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she had alighted at Bhagat Phata alone. She had not seen the accused while alighting from the bus. There is an omission to the extent that she had requested the accused to listen to her, but he denied to do so. She has admitted the contents in the first information report that she had fallen down on the floor due to fist blow given by the accused on her cheek. She has admitted that after falling down, she could not scuffle with the accused but she tried to scuffle prior to falling down. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination she has feigned ignorance as to whether she was undergoing menstrual cycle on the date of incident. She had admitted that she had found some blood stains on her saree. She had categorically admitted that accused did not alight with her. So there is no question of any doubt as the young boy accused was with her. The suggestion in respect of the political rivalry in the village has been categorically denied by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was not confronted with her first information report and therefore, omissions and contradictions have not been marked.