ANIL VITHOBA SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in sessions Case No. 163 of 1998 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376,451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer R. I. for 7 years, 1 year and 6 months respectively. The appellant is challenging the said judgment and order in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that one Rohidas Zalte was residing at Village- vanjarwadi, Taluka- Nasik, along with his wife and children. He had three minor daughters; sunita, Sangita and Sarla and two minor sons; amol and Sandip. On 2-9-1998, the complainant came home at about 5.30 p. m. and he and other family members had dinner and he along with his minor daughters went to bed at about 9 p. m. At about 11 p. m. the accused entered the house of the complainant, lifted p. W. 1 - prosecutrix from her bed and took her to the corridor and he latched the bed room from outside and thereafter, he committed rape on the prosecutrix. P. W. 1 - raised hue and cry and other family members woke up from their sleep due to noise of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had sustained abrasions and there was pain in her private part. Rohidas went to the Police Patil in the morning and thereafter _ complaint was lodged. Clothes of the prosecutrix were seized. Accused was arrested and his clothes and other articles were seized and he was referred to the Medical Officer. The specimen of pubic hair, blood and semen of the accused were collected. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the accused for offences punishable under sections 376,451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused has taken me through the judgment and order of the trial court and also oral and documentary evidence on record. He submitted that from the evidence of the Doctor it was crystal clear that the accused had not committed rape as there is no penetration in the private part of the prosecutrix and hymen was in tact. He further submitted that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that prosecutrix was a minor girl below 12 years of age. He further submitted that delay in filing F. I. R. has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. He submitted that a false complaint has been lodged at the instance of his rival Shri. Ashok katore and Shri. Prabhakar Shinde.