VILAS KONDIBA GALANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Ext.Jt. Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dtd. 4/6/2022 holding appellant convict guilty for offences under Sec. 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), under Sec. 323 of the IPC and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and rigorous imprisonment for two months respectively. Appellant has also been held guilty for offence under Sec. 3(a) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Assault Act (POCSO Act) but no separate punishment is awarded.

(2.) Appellant was chargesheeted by Tamalwadi Police Station, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad on accusation that victim, a minor, who had been to answer call of nature, there, one unknown person caught-hold of her, dragged her in Sugarcane crop, disrobed her and sexually ravished her. She rushed to her grandmother and informed the incident to her. Her grandparents, other relatives took her to the hospital and thereafter, FIR was lodged for above offence. Accused was apprehended and chargesheeted and duly tried by the learned Ext.Jt.Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who on appreciation of evidence, accepted the case of prosecution to be proved to the above extent and hence, instant appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no convincing, cogent, reliable evidence about appellant to be real culprit. He pointed out that according to victim herself, she was sexually abused by an unknown person. Therefore, identification of real culprit ought to have been established cogently and firmly and prosecution had failed to do so. He took us through the testimony of victim and would submit that her evidence does not show that there is penetrative sexual assault. According to him, even there were no injuries on the private part of the victim and further medical expert, who examined victim had not made observations in that regard. Further according to him, even CA report being negative, it falsifies case of prosecution. He further submitted that apparently version of victim shows that, there was at the most mere attempt to commit rape or outraging modesty or sexual assault and nothing beyond that According to him, there is no reliable, cogent and direct evidence. That conduct of prosecution witnesses is unnatural as no attempt has been made by them to go to the rescue of the victim inspite of claiming to be present there. That even there were no injuries on the accused and according to him, had it been a forcible sexual assault, then taking the situation at scene of occurrence into consideration, there ought to have been injuries on the person of accused also, but the same were missing. Further according to him, even there was no mud to the clothes of either victim or accused. Therefore, by all means, it is his submission that evidence of prosecution is very weak.