BAJIRAO TANAJI MHASNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein along with two others has been convicted for offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 342 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 506(II) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Appellant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge 2, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 148/2008 vide Judgment and Order dated 28/08/2008. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, appellant, i.e. original accused no. 3 has presented this appeal. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25/04/2006, prosecutrix (since deceased) along with her husband Godiram Thakare approached Igatpuri Police Station and lodged a report alleging therein that on 22/04/2006, she had been to the forest to collect fuel wood and her husband had been to Borli to attend the marriage of a family member of her sister Thamabai. She sold the fuel wood 'Cangu' for Rs. 35/-. She had proceeded to purchase grocery from the said amount. At that time, original accused no. 1 was sitting in dilapidated courtyard of Lahanubai Pandit and original accused no. 2 Santosh Tangade was standing nearby. Accused no. 1 called her. Since she was acquainted with them, she went towards original accused no. 1. He assured to give her a job. They took her inside the house. Santosh had latched the house from outside and she was ravished by original accused no. 1 in the dilapidated house. She was trying to rescue herself and hence, she ran towards forest. She was accosted by accused no. 2 and present appellant. Accused no. 2 had solicited sexual favours from her and was attempting to catch hold of her.

(2.) It is alleged that at that time, present appellant had threatened the prosecutrix and had asked her to extend favours to accused no. 2 or else she would have to suffer dire consequences. It is further alleged that present appellant had also threatened her that she should not inform about the said incident to anybody. She then proceeded to her house at about 6.00 pm. On the next day, her husband returned to village Borli. She informed her husband about the said incident. Thereafter, she, along with her husband had proceeded to the house of the accused persons. They were threatened of dire consequences. They returned home on 24/04/2006 and thereafter, complainant had been to the police station along with her husband and had lodged the report. On the basis of the report, crime no. 49/2006 was registered against the accused for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(g), 342, 506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Since the prosecutrix belonged to the scheduled tribe, offence was also registered for offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. Present appellant was arrested on 29/04/2006. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Accused were on bail during the pendency of trial.

(3.) Prosecution examined 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Prosecutrix has expired on 23/02/2007 and hence, she was not available for recording of substantive evidence at the time of trial.