DATTA ROHIDAS PAYALE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No. 146 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC. For the offence under Section 363, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default R.I. for one year. For the offence under Section 366-A, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d R.I. for two years. For the offence under Section 376, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15000/- i/d R.I. for two years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:

(2.) P.W. 7 Dr. Naik examined the victim girl and he found that there were two nail marks on the lower inner quadrant on the right breast and her hymen was torn. The Doctor noticed that hymen not only torn but it was also inflamed. Doctor suggested for ossification test. Accordingly, she was sent for ossification test. P.W. 8 Dr. Bhanushali conducted the ossification test. In his opinion, the age of the girl was not over 16 years of age. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant under sections 363, 366-A & 376 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in the present case, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal.