BANDU MARUTI DUPARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the judgment and order dated 8.1.2002 in Sessions Trial 113 of 1996 delivered by the 3rd District Sessions Judge, Chandrapur by and under which the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") is convicted of offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/.

(2.) The genesis of the prosecution case is the report dated 11.1.1996 lodged by the prosecutrix inter alia stating that on 10.1.1996-Wednesday at 6 p.m., she went to Bhadrawati being a weekly market day. The prosecutrix was in the weekly market till 7.30 p.m. and then her brother Suryabhan Dongre dropped the prosecutrix near the field of one Vitthal Punvatkar on bicycle. Suryabhan Dongre left and the prosecutrix was walking towards the village Baranj when she was accosted by the accused near the "Bodi" (a small pond or reservoir) located on the rear side of the school. The accused lifted the prosecutrix from behind and started taking her towards Bodi. The prosecutrix raised an alarm, the accused pressed her mouth, made the prosecutrix fall down, threatened her with the physical harm, undressed her with one hand and at that time the prosecutrix resisted and kicked the accused with both feet. The oral report states that despite the resistance, the accused committed forcible intercourse and then ran away but not before threatening the prosecutrix that if the incident is disclosed, she shall be dealt with appropriately. The oral report states that incident took place at 8.30 p.m. and then the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband and along-with her husband came to the police station to lodge report. The oral report is at Exh. 14 and the First Information Report which is registered on the basis of oral report is at Exh. 37.

(3.) The investigation culminated into charge-sheet being submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhadrawati who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chandrapur. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh. 10, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The defence as is discernible from the text and tenor of the cross examination is of total denial and then in the alternate, of a consensual sexual relationship.