VISHWAS GOPAL JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th February, 1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1984 convicting him of the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366-A I.P.C. and sentencing him on each of these two counts to suffer imprisonment for four years.

(2.) For the decision of this appeal it is not necessary to state all the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366-A, 392, 506 and 376 I.P.C. The facts, shortly stated, are that the accused on 17th May, 1984 took away minor girl Pratibha Pandurang Gamare (P.W. 2) from the lawful custody of her parents. He took her from the house of her parents on the representation that he was taking her to the house of her aunt at Dhamandevi. The accused is the real brother of the aunt of the prosecutrix, and believing that he would take her to the house of her aunt she went with him, but the accused on the way made her to get down the bus at Parshuram Ghat and took her into the jungle and there he raped her. Thereafter he took her at so many places and he was having forcible sexual Intercourse with her all the while till he was arrested on 20th May, 1984. On 20th May, 1984 the father of Pratibha took her to the police-station and at the police station Pratibha lodged the report Ex. 19 against the accused. After necessary investigation the accused was prosecuted for the offences mentioned above. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the accused held that Pratibha had willingly accompanied the accused and the accused had sexual intercourse with her consent. He found that Pratibha was over 16 years and below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Therefore, according to him, the accused committed the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366-A I.P.C. and as such he convicted him for the said offences and imposed the sentences mentioned above.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal through jail. Mr. P.K. Jadhav, advocate was appointed to conduct this appeal for and on behalf of the appellant-accused.