BANDU HASAN TAMOBLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (for short, "the accused") was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Karad in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2000 for offences punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal code (for short, "the IPC") and sections 3 (2) (v) and 3 (1) (x), 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 (for short, "the said Act" ).

(2.) IT would be advant ageous to give a gist of the prosecution case. Complainant Mangal Govind Bhise resides along with her husband, her children and her brother- in- law at Warana Prakalpa Vasahat , koyana Siding, Ogalewadi, Taluka Karad. Her husba n d PW-7 Govind daji Bhise was working as a labourer in Warana Irrigation Prakalp. The accused was also serving in the same department and he was residing in the same locality. His chawl was at the back of the complainant ' s room. The accused used to visit the complainant ' s house and her children used to call the accused Bhai- mama. On 7/8/1994 at about 3. 30 p. m. , the complainant ' s daughter Manisha aged about five years was playing with her friend Sheetal in front of their house under a tree. PW-7 Govind, the husban d of the complainant had gone to the saloon for a hair- cut. The complainant was in the house at about 4. 30 p. m. Her husban d returned from the hair- cutting saloon. At that time, Sheetal, the friend of Manisha came to him and told him that Bhai- mama had taken their daughter manisha by telling her that he will give her flowers. According to her, the accused had taken Manisha towards the garden. Thereafter, PW-7 Govind went towards the garden. The Rest House belonging to warana Project Department is situated inside the garden. According to the complainant , her husban d PW-7 Govind returned to the house along with Manisha. She asked Manisha as to what had happened. Manisha started weeping and disclosed to them that Bhai- mama had told her that he will give her flowers. He took her in the house situated in the garden; closed the door, made her lie on the cot and removed her nicker. He also removed his pant and underwear and he inserted his penis in her vagina. She, therefore, started crying. According to her, at that time, her father came there. When her father knocked at the door, the accused wore his underwear and pant and opened the door. Her father made her wear her clothes. He slapped the accused and, thereafter, he brought her home. According to the complainant , she and her husban d inspected the private parts of Manisha. They noticed that the private parts were reddish and some sticky material was found there. According to the complainant , they did not report the matter immediately to the police becaus e it concerned the prestige and character of their minor daughter. However, ultimately on 11/8/1994 , the complainant lodged the complaint with the police that the accused had commit ted rape on her daughter Manisha. The said complaint is at Ex- 13.

(3.) ON the basis of this complaint, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the accused. Investigation was started and after completion of investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid. In suppor t of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The prosecution examined the complainant PW-1 mangal and her husba n d PW-7 Govind. The prosecution also examined PW-2 Dr. Salunk he, who had examined Manisha. The prosecution examined PW-3 Dr. Jadhav, who had examined the accused. The prosecution examined PW-11 Nalavade, the Special judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of Manisha under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW-8 Shanka r is the pancha to Ex- 28, under which clothes of Manisha were seized. PW-10 Kadam is the pancha to Ex- 32 under which clothes of the accused were seized. PW-6 Sheetal is the friend of Manisha. The details of investigation were given by PW-12 PSI Rajendra Mokashi.