MAROTI @ BANAJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - original accused has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nanded in Special (POSCO) Case No.6/2013 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. He has also been convicted under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The trial Court found the accused guilty also under Section 3 read with 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Act, in brief), but did not pass separate sentence. Thus the present appeal.

(2.) In short the case of prosecution is as under :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has taken me through the evidence which has been recorded. It was stated that, as per C.A. report, semen was found on the quilt which had been seized and that it was blood group "A", which is the blood group of accused. However, according to the counsel, the investigating officer had not recorded at the time of seizure of the quilt that there was any stain on the quilt when it was seized. According to the counsel, the victim deserves to be disbelieved as initially she made grievance only under Section 354 of the IPC, but later on, on the same day she went on to claim that she had actually been raped.