DILIP PANDURANG KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 1990 is filed by the appellant - original accused No.1 against his conviction under the Arms and Explosives Act, 1959. Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1991 is filed by the State against acquittal of all the accused from offences of rioting, unlawful assembly, assault and rape. Criminal Revision Application No. 4 of 1991 is filed by the complainant - victim Sou. Mangal Vilas Pawar against acquittal of all the accused from all the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Sexual offences, namely, rape, in particular, are considered very grave and serious by the society and the jurisprudence that is developed in this regard by plethora of judgments of Supreme Court and various High Courts lay down that the courts are expected to deal with the cases of sexual assault against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.

(3.) A socially sensitized Judge is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against woman than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos, are the observations of the Supreme Court in (2006) 3 SCC 771 Dinesh alias Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan, preceded by other observations that sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity - it degrades and humiliates the victim.