JAYRAM DAVID KALYANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 29-3-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.4 of 1993, convicting him under section 451 IPC and 376 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to further undergo six months R.I. under the first count and to seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to further undergo 1 year R.I; the substantive sentences to run concurrently, has come up in appeal before us.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief runs as follows :- THE prosecutrix Shabana Bagwan along with her mother Mumtaz Bagwan, P.W. 4 lived in Kuchan High School Zopadpatti, Solapur. THE appellant was her neighbour. On 14-10-1992, at about 9 p.m. while the prosecutrix along with her sister Nilopher and Arif were sleeping in a room in their house, the appellant entered the aforesaid room and lifted the prosecutrix on his shoulder and took her away near a latrine, situate nearby. THEre, the appellant is alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix by inserting his penis in her private part. It is alleged that blood started oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix. THEreafter, the appellant slept with the prosecutrix. In the meantime, wife of the appellant slapped the prosecutrix and hence, the prosecutrix came to her house. She told her mother Mumtaz Bagwan P.W.4 about the incident. Next morning at about 7 a.m. (at the time of incident, mother of the prosecutrix had gone to attend a wedding in village Takli) the FIR of the incident was lodged by Mumtaz Bagwan P.W. 4 at 9.30 a.m. at police station, Sakharpet, District Solapur.

(3.) IN the trial court, charges under section 451 and 376 IPC were framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of denial. IN the trial court, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. It also tendered some documentary evidence. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined. We may mention that the solitary witness of the incident is the prosecutrix,- P.W. 3 Shabana Bagwan.