SUJIT BHURANDAS BORKAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 28th January, 2015 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Gondia, in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2011, convicting and sentencing the appellant, accused, Sujit Bhurandas Borkar, of offences punishable under Sections:-

(2.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that record of the case shows that the appellant, accused, was not in a normal mental state for reasons more than one. Even the record during trial and thereafter, and various communications made by him show his abnormal behaviour. According to him, since the mental unfitness of the appellant was clearly visible, in that he was not normal, inasmuch as he filed Exhs.7 and 15 before Trial Judge before commencement of trial on his own, stating that he did not want any legal assistance from the Legal Aid Committee, Govt., and the Court, and would himself defend his side, the Trial Court should not have held trial without giving him legal assistance. The counsel also pointed out that the cross-examination made by appellant himself as per his own choice is certainly not the way in which cross-examination is done by a cross-examiner. This has caused a very serious prejudice to the appellant. He did not get a fair trial. According to Mr. Bhangde, the appellant should have been sent by the learned Trial Judge for finding out his mental fitness and then the Trial Court should have decided whether to allow him to defend himself or for giving help of an Advocate. The fact remains that he was never given the help of an Advocate and the trial went ahead till the culmination of trial ultimately resulting into conviction of the appellant for the serious offence of rape.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant then, without prejudice to the above contentions, submitted on merits of the matter that the story of the prosecution since beginning is contradictory, inconsistent and cannot be reconciled. The contradictions inherently seen in the prosecution case are so material that the prosecution case is required to be rejected and the appellant, accused, is required to be acquitted. The learned counsel relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & others (V) Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna [, 1980 SCC (Cri) 50] and the learned APP fairly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 2 SCC 584].