STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GOKULSING SANDUSING BEDWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State of Maharashtra is taking exception to the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Buldana, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 21/90, by which he allowed the appeal filed by respondents against the judgment of Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Case No. 63/88 by which Respondent no. 1 (accused) was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (accused) were held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 313 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and fine of R.1000/-, in default R.I. for 6 months (Respondent No.1) and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default R.I. for three months (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) and Respondent No.2 further convicted for the offence under Section 419 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for three months. As the appeal against convictions of the respondents was allowed, all respondents/ accused were acquitted of the offences charged by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondents as unfolded are as follows; Prosecutrix Kantabi P.W.4, was aged about 16 years at the relevant time. She was residing with her mother P.W.6 Kamanabai and brothers etc. at village Chandol, Tq. & District . Buldana, which is situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dhad. She used to go for labour work at the field of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3). Respondent No. 1 is the son of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, whereas Respondent No. 4 is local private medical practitioner of Chandol. It is alleged that P.W.4 Kantabai was going to the field of respondents for labour work since 2-3 years. On one occasion, respondent no. 1, who was then aged about 24 years, committed rape on her. When she resisted and refused to give consent, Respondent no. 1 promised to marry her. On this pretext, respondent no. 1 committed rape on P.W.4 Kantabai several time. Some time in the month of October/November, 1987, P.W.4 Kantabai became pregnant. At that time respondent threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anybody and the respondent no.1 would marry her. P.W.4 Kantabai then approached Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and disclosed about the pregnancy, however, again Respondent No. 1 promised to marry her. Thereafter in the first week of January 1988, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondent No. 4 decided to terminate the pregnancy of P.W.4 Kantabai. They took her to Buldana on the pretext of taking her to Shegaon (Religious place) as disclosed to her mother P.W.6 Kamanabai. There, in the hospital of P.W.10 Dr.Sucheta Bhonde, the operation of termination of her pregnancy was carried out on 5.1.1988. It is alleged that Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 represented themselves to be the parents of P.W.4 Kantabai and accordingly Respondent No. 2 had put up his thumb print on the consent register maintained by P.W.10 Dr. Sucheta Bhonde. However, there was bleeding through the private parts of P.W.4 Kantabai. Then she narrated about the incident to her mother P.W.6 Kamanabai. Thereafter prosecutrix P.W.4 Kantabai and her relatives went to Advocate Rathod of Buldana. The complaint at their instance was reduced in writing and the same was then sent to Superintendent of Police, Buldana, on 11.8.1988. The same was forwarded to Police Station Dhad. P.S.I. Tidke, P.W.13 of Police Station Dhad registered the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. bearing Crime No. 7/88. Exh.90 being the printed F.I.R. He then recorded the statements of witnesses including P.W.4 Kantabai, P.W.6 Kamanabai, P.W.9 Fulsing, P.W.7 Asha Ekade, P.W.10 Dr. Sucheta Bhonde and some others. Prosecutrix P.W.4 Kanatabai was sent for medical examination. Accordingly Medical Officer P.W.1 Dr.Shoba Deshmukh examined her and issued certificate of her medical examination. It is alleged that during investigation it was found that the operation of termination of pregnancy was performed in the hospital of P.W.10 Dr. Sucheta Bhonde and the consent for the same was recorded in the diary which was bearing the thumb print of Respondent no. 2 as consenting parent. It is alleged that during investigation prosecutrix P.W.4 Kantabai showed the spot of incident. Spot Panchanama was prepared. Some of the articles were seized from the spot. The thumb print of Respondent no. 2 was compared with his specimen thumb print obtained during the investigation. Accordingly P.W.11 Dulgawali had issued his opinion saying that the thumb print on the said register tallied with the specimen thumb print of Respondent no.2. After due investigation, all the respondents were charge sheeted, for the offence punishable under Section 313 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. and Respondent No.1 Gokulsing Bedwal was specifically charged for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.

(3.) On committal of the case, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldana, framed charge against the respondents for the aforesaid offences. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the same. Their defence is that of total denial and false implication.