RAJU NAMDEO CHAVAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default further R.I. for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to suffer further R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month by Extra Joint Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 15.7.2010. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:--

(2.) PW-1 is the complainant Kalubai. According to her, her elder daughter/victim was about 7 years at the time of incident. She has deposed before the Court in consonance with the first information report. She has proved the contents of the FIR which is marked at Exhibit 13. In the cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated. She has denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, the accused was at Igatpuri for whole day as Vishnu Chavan had entrusted an important work to him. She has denied the suggestion that the victim girl had sustained injury as she had fallen down. As far as the entire incident is concerned, as narrated by the victim to the doctor, the defence has failed to make a dent in the deposition of PW-1. She has stated in her cross-examination that she had disclosed the entire incident to her neighbours, but they did not pay attention to her.

(3.) PW-2 is the victim herself. The learned Judge has put certain questions to the victim. She has answered that on the date of the incident, she had gone with her mother to see Vishnu Mama at Railway gate. She met the accused there. He told the victim that they should go to Vishnu Mama. Upon being asked as to whether she met Vishnu Mama, that she answered in the negative. She has deposed that Raju Nana had taken her towards water tank in the dark. That he had denuded her of her under garments, gagged her mouth and then ravished her. Thereafter, he took her in his arms and brought her home. She narrated the incident to her mother and then they went to the police station. She has identified the accused in the Court. The victim was subjected to cross-examination. She has categorically denied the suggestion that she had named the accused at the instance of her mother.