STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEVIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Maharashtra has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 16/12/2002 passed by the learned 7th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 53/2001, thereby acquitting respondent/accused of the offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 511 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN brief, it is the case of prosecution that on 15/11/2000 prosecutrix, a blind girl, aged about 13 years, while she was present alone in the house, at about 4 p.m, P.W. 3 Chindhu, her father, returned home and since did not find her in the house, asked his son Swapnil about her, who informed that she had gone to the house of Kotwal. Accordingly, P.W.3 Chindhu went to the house of Kotwal, namely, Wasudeo Meshram where he found his daughter present and she informed that while she was playing in the courtyard in the noon time, accused arrived there and after driving away two of her friends from the spot, caught her arm and took her to the cattle shed and on removing her clothes, committed sexual assault on her. It is the further case of prosecutrix that as one Shashikala Dumre arrived, accused ran away. P.W.3 Chindhu accordingly brought prosecutrix to Police Station, Kondhali and lodged his report (Exh. 14), which was recorded by P.W.6 Mahadeo Bhatkar, Head Constable and on the basis of the same, registered offences vide Crime No. 163/2000, which was investigated by P.W.7 Shalikram Revatkar, Head Constable and during the course of investigation, on 16/11/2000 he drew spot panchanama vide Exh. 16 and recorded statements of prosecutrix and other witnesses, on 17/11/2000 he referred prosecutrix for her medical examination and on the same day, arrested accused, who too was referred for his medical examination.

(3.) CHARGE was framed against accused vide Exh.2, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is the specific defence of accused that in their village, there were two parties -one of Pande and another of Dhawale. Father of accused was then working for Dhawale's party while P.W.3 Chindhu father of prosecutrix, was working for Pande's party. According to accused, at the time of incident, there were elections and P.W.3 Chindhu had come to his father and asked him to work for Pande's party, to which his father refused. It is the further case of accused that due to such refusal, P.W.3 Chindhu threatened his father to the effect that since he is not willing to work for the party of Pande, he would implicate him in a false case. Thus, according to accused, he is accordingly falsely implicated by Chindhu, complainant, in the present crime, by tutoring his blind daughter. The learned trial Judge on considering the evidence and documents on record acquitted accused. Hence, this criminal appeal by State.