ADITYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original accused, who stood convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Beed for offence punishable under Sec. 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2019 by judgment and order dtd. 3/10/2023, is taking exception to the same by filing instant appeal.

(2.) On report of prosecutrix dtd. 26/2/2019, City Police Station Beed registered Crime No.32 of 2019, wherein it was reported that, after spending one year with husband, she had come to stay with her parents. On 26/2/2019, when she went out to urinate, accused came from behind and forcibly dragged her and had forcible sexual intercourse, and thereafter, issued threats to kill, if she reports the incident to anyone. On reaching home, she reported her parents and they all approached police. PW7 Babasaheb Dahiphale, who was entrusted with investigation, after gathering evidence, charge-sheeted accused. On trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed accepted the case of prosecution as proved and handed down the judgment of conviction. Resultantly, instant appeal.

(3.) Criticizing the prosecution case as false and fabricated, it is submitted that, version of prosecutrix is patently unbelievable. That, there was no forceful act or without consent. Rather act was consensual one. In support of such contention, learned counsel took this court through the cross of PW2 victim. He pointed out that, contents of FIR and statement given before learned Magistrate are not consistent, thereby creating doubt on the credibility of her testimony.