PRAVIN POPAT KHARAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict for offence under Sec. 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, is hereby assailing the judgment and order dtd. 13/9/2022 passed by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, Ahmednagar in Special Case No.109 of 2019.

(2.) PW1 Victim studied in 11th standard in Shri Sant Nilobaray Mahavidyalaya at Ralegansiddhi. In marriage of one Yogesh Jadhav, victim got acquainted with accused. Thereafter, there were talks of marriage but as victim had not completed 18 years of age and was pursuing education, marriage proposal was not accepted. However, accused started meeting victim inspite of her refusal. Accused threatened her and forcibly took her in a hotel and against her wish and without her consent, he had sexual intercourse with her several times. Subsequently, her pregnancy was revealed and therefore, on 17/2/2019, she consumed insecticide and was required to be hospitalized. While taking treatment, her statement was recorded and crime was registered which was finally investigated by PW14 Sone (API), who on completion of investigation, chargesheeted accused and was further tried by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Ahmednagar, who on appreciating oral and documentary evidence, recorded guilt for above Ss. and the same is now challenged by way of instant appeal.

(3.) Putting up a defence of false implication, learned Counsel for appellant would submit that except sole testimony of victim, there is no cogent, reliable, independent evidence. He alleges false implication to cover up the alleged suicidal attempt by victim. According to him, contents of the report and testimony of the victim are inconsistent. He also questions the age of the victim on the ground that there is no conclusive evidence about her age. That though PW15 Navnath Katke and P16 Dilip Deshmukh are examined, there is doubt whether victim was a minor as name of the victim is missing from the birth certificate. According to him, birth certificate shows date of birth of prosecutrix as 16/9/2002, however, in school leaving certificate, different date is reflected i.e. 17/9/2002 and therefore, being difference in both, he prays to discard the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the point of age.