SIDDHARTH DAGADU SONDE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 20th May 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Pune, in Special Child Sessions Case No.42 of 2013 thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Section 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant accused is also held guilty under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act hereinafter). On each count for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as well as that under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.5,000-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, the appellant accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, apart from directing him to pay fine of Rs.1,000- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Substantive sentences imposed on these three counts are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the institution of the present proceedings are thus :-

(3.) I have heard Shri Yashpal Thakur, the learned advocate on the panel of Legal Aid of High Court and appointed by this court to represent the appellant accused at the cost of the State. By taking me meticulously through the entire record, Shri Yashpal Thakur, the learned advocate argued that case of the prosecution becomes suspect because of inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). He argued that though according to the prosecution case PW2 Suman Gaikwad - mother of the PW1 prosecutrix came to know about the alleged incident on 15 th May 2013, still no action came to be taken by the prosecuting party and ultimately, the FIR came to be lodged belatedly on 20 th May 2013. This indicates false implication of the appellant accused in the crime in question by concocting against him. It is further argued that the PW1 prosecutrix had ample opportunity to complain against the appellant accused. Evidence on record indicates that she was continuously in contact with her mother PW2 Suman Gaikwad and her grandmother PW3 Kamal Gaikwad, during the course of her stay at the house of the appellant accused. The learned advocate pointed out that the PW1 prosecutrix had a brief stay at her own house at Dattawadi, in company of her mother and grandmother during Diwali vacation. Still, she failed to make any grievance against the appellant accused. The learned advocate further drew my attention to evidence of PW3 Kamal Gaikwad to point out that PW3 KamalGaikwad was continuously visiting the house of the appellant accused for meeting her daughter as well as grandchildren. At that time, the PW1 prosecutrix used to interact with PW3 Kamal Gaikwad. Still, the prosecutrix did not complain about the alleged act of the appellant accused. This, according to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant accused, makes the prosecution case doubtful and improbable.