PANDIT OMKAR SAPKALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present case is one amongst a series of cases which had notoriously come to be known as " Jalgaon sex scandal ". THE present case, as also other cases, involving sex offences against several girls and women, was launched in the city of Jalgaon. In pursuance of a notification issued by the Government all these cases were transferred for being tried by a 'lady Judge' Smt. M. R. Bhatkar at Pune. As far as the instant case is concerned, the same has resulted in an order of conviction and the same is impugned in the present appeals.

(2.) ACCUSED No.1, in the instant case, is a Municipal Councillor and ACCUSED No.2 is a son of an Ex. M. L. A. The victim of the sexual assault is P. W. 1 Lata, a divorced wife of one Subhash Salunke. She is aged about 26 years. She is a resident of Jalgaon, a District place in Maharashtra. She was residing alongwith her mother and two brothers. Both the brothers are married and are gainfully employed. She was married to Subhash on the 4th of April, 1988. Subhash is a resident of village Anturli taluka Edalabad. Prior to her marriage, she had passed her fifth standard. After marriage, she cohabited with Subhash for a period of about three months whereafter Subhash deserted her and sent her to her parental abode at Jalgaon. The reason for Subhash to have deserted her, according to Lata, was that she had failed to conceive during the period of their cohabitation. She has further stated that during her cohabitation with Subhash, she was not mentally or physically satisfied with him. She has further claimed that she has had no extra marital relations with anybody after she was deserted by Subhash. In her medical examination, which was conducted after the lodging of the first information report in the present case, she was found to be using Copper-T which is a contraceptive used for preventing pregnancy. After she started residing with her parents, she completed her seventh standard in order to secure a job, which she did by securing employment as an Aya in Sane Guruji Municipal Hospital. Lata is, thus, a full grown up urban lady. The aforesaid facts are taken into account for appreciating her evidence in respect of the present crime, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused.

(3.) THE second incident, according to Lata, took place two months after first incident. Lata was purchasing vegetables at about 4.00 p. m. near the building of Pratibha Mahila Bank. At that time accused No.1 came there. He was accompanied by Accused No.2. Accused No.1 asked Lata to accompany him. She refused, as she suspected the foul intentions of the accused. Accused No.1 asked Accused No.2 to get a rickshaw. Accused No.1 then told Lata that if she did not obey him, as per his directions, he would take her forcibly. After accused No.2 had brought a rickshaw, Lata was compelled to sit in the rickshaw and both the accused sat on either side of her. She was then taken to the house of Accused No.1. As on the earlier occasion, Accused No.1 opened the lock of the house. THE three then entered the house. She was then taken to the last room. Accused No.2 closed the front door. THE back side door was already closed. Lata was, thereafter, compelled to take out her clothes by Accused No.1. Lata protested. THEn accused No.2 took out a knife from his waist and brandished the same by pressing the button of that knife. He asked her to take out her clothes. She accordingly removed her clothes. Accused No.1 removed his clothes also. He, thereafter, started having forcible sexual intercourse with her. At that time Accused No.2 was standing nearby with the open knife. After accused No.1 had forcible sexual intercourse with her, he left her and immediately Accused No.2 also had forcible sexual intercourse with her. When Accused No.2 was having forcible sexual intercourse with her, Accused No.1 was standing with an open brass knife near her. It was the same knife which was previously held by Accused No.2. After the sexual intercourse both the accused threatened her not to disclose the incident anywhere otherwise they would kill her and her family members. THEy further told her that if at all anybody asked her why she had visited the house of Accused No.1 she should answer that she had gone there to scrub utensils.