SHRIMANT PUNDALIK DUDHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 376(i) and 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and R.I. for 2 years respectively, with a direction that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by judgment dated 9th April, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 871 of 2006, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. Facts as are necessary for the decision of the appeal may briefly be stated thus:-

(2.) PW-5 PSI Santu B. Khamkar, who on 4th April, 2006 was attached to the Deonar Police Station, recorded a report of the victim (whose name is deliberately withheld) at Exh. 10. On the basis of the report of the PW-1 victim, an offence vide Crime No. 124 of 2006 was registered under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. PW-5 PSI Khamkar, thereafter recorded statements of PW-4 Shahubai. The appellant was arrested under arrest panchanama at Exh. 20 and the clothes of the appellant's were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 21. PW-5 PSI Khamkar then proceeded to the scene of the incident and in the presence of the panchas, drew the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh. 12. He seized one saree, one blouse, one petticoat and one mat. The victim and the appellant were then referred for medical examination and were examined by PW-3 Dr. Shivaji Daund. The seized property was thereafter referred to the chemical analyser under requisition at Exh. 24. The reports of the chemical analysis are at Exh. 25 colly. Further, on the completion of investigation a charge-sheet against the appellant was filed.

(3.) On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial Court vide Exh. 2 and Exh. 2A framed charge against appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of the IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and came to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 5 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was of the denial. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated.