RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original accused in Special (POCSO) Case No.54 of 2017 is hereby assailing the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Parbhani dtd. 13/10/2020 by which conviction has been recorded for the offence under Sec. 354-A, 376(2)(i) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) alongwith Ss. 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and thereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment as spelt out in the operative part of the impugned judgment. CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

(2.) PW2 mother of victim approached Manwat Police Station alleging that her victim daughter aged nine years was raped by accused, who was father of friend of her daughter, by taking her in bathroom of Dhoracha Wada. That daughter developed itching complaint to private part and was taken to various Doctors. When she took victim daughter in confidence, her daughter told that accused used to show her obscene material in his mobile and he had taken her to the above spot and had sexual intercourse with her. Hence, the complaint of offence under Ss. 354-A, 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC alognwith Ss. 6, 8, 10, 12 of the POCSO Act. Investigation was carried out by PW9 Shivshankar Manale and on its completion, accused was chargesheeted and tried before Special Judge (POCSO), Parbhani, who on appreciating evidence adduced by the prosecution, accepted the case as proved and recorded guilt as spelt out in the operative part of the judgment dtd. 13/10/2020, which is now taken exception to by convict by filing instant appeal. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of Appellant :

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. That evidence of prosecution is weak and moreover, full of material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies. According to him, there is inordinate delay in reporting the occurrence. He pointed out that material witnesses are not examined. According to him, inspite of victim being examined by several Doctors, there is no concrete opinion about sexual assault. He invited attention of this Court to the testimony of PW4 Dr.Manisha as well as answers given by her in cross-examination. According to him, there is no independent corroboration to the testimony of victim or her mother, who has lodged FIR on the basis of hearsay information. He further submitted that learned trial Judge has not invited attention of the accused to the incriminating material as is required under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but is held proved. He pointed out that infact Legislature had already repealed Sec. 376(2)(i) of the IPC, but conviction is recorded for the same. Resultantly, it is his submission that there is total non-application of mind and non-appreciation of evidence as well as law and so he seeks indulgence of this Court in setting aside the impugned judgment. He seeks reliance on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court.