DEEPAK SHANKARRAO BOREKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Session Case No.46 of 2010, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant is further held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in short, are as under PW 3 Namdeo Bapuraoji Chaudhari was attached to Deoli Police Station as P.S.I. He was incharge of the Police Station on 11th of May, 2006. On the said day, prosecutrix (PW 1) came to the Police Station and lodged report against the appellant. Her report was taken by Police Head Constable Arjun. The report was perused by Namdeo Chaudhari (PW 3) and thereafter he directed PHC Arjun to register the offence and accordingly an offence was registered against the appellant vide Crime No.96 of 2006. The investigation of the said crime was taken to himself by Namdeo Chaudhari (PW 3).

(3.) Exh.40 is the oral report lodged by the prosecutrix against the appellant. Her report discloses that appellant resides in the neighbourhood of the first informant. His father resides at Mouda however he never comes at Andori where the appellant and first informant used to reside. Oral report further proceeds that first informant was on talking term with the appellant since last six months and he used to visit her house. About six months ago, the first informant had been to a 'Bhajan Programme" and when after returning to her house she was pulled by the appellant near a lane and there he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the first informant. According to the First Information Report, the time of this occurrence was in between 00.00 to 1.00 a.m. That time the appellant extended threat of killing her parents. The First Information Report further proceeds that after eight days of the incident when her parents were not available in house and when only her blind and deaf grandmother was present and first informant was sleeping on the bed, since she was not keeping good health, the appellant came and on the promise that he will marry with her established sexual relations with her. The said continued for 34 occasions and for every occasion he gave promise of marriage and had fulfilled his sexual lust. Due to the sexual relations the first informant became pregnant. That time said fact was disclosed by first informant to her parents that she is pregnant from the appellant and when this fact was disclosed to the appellant, the appellant flatly refused to marry with the first informant.