YOGIRAJ Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd July 1999 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 89/1998 sentencing the appellant to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for six months, the present Appeal was filed in this Court.

(2.) In support of the Appeal Shri A.D. Girdekar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, is perverse since the medical evidence does not at all support the prosecution case. It was risky to convict the appellant for the offence of rape, looking to the age of the appellant and the prosecutrix, having the age of six years. He then submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is untrustworthy and should have been discarded by the trial Judge. At any rate, there could be no conviction of the appellant, much less u/s. 376 IPC. In the alternative, he submitted that the appellant has already undergone sentence of three months and two days and in view of the fact that the appellant has a family with children to maintain, he should be let off on the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Lastly, the learned counsel left it to the discretion of this Court about the deposit of increased fine amount, if any.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Ritu Kalia, learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix stands unshattered in the cross-examination which is crystal clear from reading of the cross-examination. In fact, according to her, there is no cross-examination at all on the material evidence and that evidence has gone unchallenged and, therefore, no fault can be found with the conviction which was recorded on the basis of sole testimony. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.