LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-228

DULANDHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On July 08, 2015
Dulandhar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 5th October, 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 146 of 2011 convicting the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000-00, in default, to suffer imprisonment for two years, on both counts, the instant appeal has been filed.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant/informant Madhuri Dulandhar Janbandhu was earlier married to Rajesh Ramteke in the year 1993 and resided with him till 2003 and she gave birth to one daughter and a son from the wedlock with Rajesh. Rajesh deserted her. Thereafter, on 5th September, 2004, she performed another marriage with the present appellant accused Dulandhar. At the time when she performed marriage with him, her daughter was eight years, while the son was six years old. Both Dulandhar and the complainant Madhuri used to go for labour work. On 12th July, 2011, when she came back to house in the evening, her minor daughter Ku. "S" (PW 1) was weeping and she informed her that the appellant-accused committed rape on her and also had threatened her not to disclose the incident to her mother or anybody. She also informed her that since May, 2010, the accused was doing forcible sexual intercourse with her and was giving threats to her. Due to fear of accused Dulandhar, minor daughter did not disclose the incident to anyone till 12th July, 2011. The complainant then lodged a report with the Police Station on 19th August, 2011. The offence was registered with City Police Station, Chandrapur, under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation was undertaken. Charge-sheet was filed. Trial was held. Appellant was convicted as above.

(3.) Trial Judge held that fourteen months prior to 12th July, 2011, the appellant had committed rape on a minor prosecutrix, aged about fifteen years. Hence this appeal.