STATE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. RAJENDRA DATTA ZAREKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is State's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 342 and 376 of I.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution could be summarized as follows:

(3.) THE accused having been charged under Section 342 and 376 I.P.C., prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses. The accused did not examine any. The case of the accused, as suggested to Pushpa/P.W.1, was that she was friendly with the accused for the last about four years and that as the earnings of her husband were not sufficient, she used to borrow money from the accused as well as his brother. The accused also suggested to her that the accused was having extra marital relation with her, a suggestion which she denied. It was also suggested to her that on the date of the incident, she had called the accused to her house, forced the accused to touch her body and after the accused discharged the semen, the same was cleaned with the frock of the victim/P.W.8 and this she did in an attempt to rope in the accused as she wanted to continue to have relations with the accused. The said bold suggestions were subsequently not adhered to by the accused, when the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). All that the accused stated in his said statement is that he used to go to the said room only when he was working on the second and third shifts but if he was on first shift, he would go home. The accused stated that whenever he went to the room, Pushpa/P.W.1 used to call him to her house and demand money from him on the day of salary and after some days, she started demanding gold chain, and on account of such demands, he stopped going to her room. The accused stated that he had not gone to the room for about eight days and, therefore, when she met him, she asked him why he was not coming to the room and as he did not come to the room as per her request, she filed a false complaint against him. The accused also stated that on 14.10.2003, the police came to his house at about 12.10 in the night and woke him up and inquired with him as to what had happened and brought him to the Police Station in the police jeep and Pushpa/P.W.1 and her daughter/P.W.8, had come on the next day to the Police Station and when Pushpa/P.W.1 was asked whether he had raped her daughter, she had answered in the negative and, on the same day, his brother approached Pushpa/P.W.1 at her residence and asked her as to why she filed a complaint against him and, at that time, Pushpa/P.W.1, demanded Rs.5,00,000/and on payment of the same, promised to withdraw the complaint. The accused also stated that on the date of her deposition before the Court, Pushpa/P.W.1 again approached outside the Court premises and as a final warning, demanded Rs.50,000/from him with a promise to retract from her earlier statement. The accused also stated that on the said date, the statement of the victim/P.W.8 was recorded, the victim was brought duly tutored.