BHUPESH TUKARAM MESHRAM Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) The petitioner/accused has approached this Court being aggrieved by the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.102 of 2012, dated 19.12015, whereby it has been observed that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

(3.) The petitioner in the year 2002 used to take tuition classes for M.P.S.C. The prosecutrix namely Vaishali Bapuraoji Sonkusare (PW3) had joined the tuition classes of the petitioner in the month of Jan., 2007. At that time, the petitioner had passed U.P.S.C. examination. It was the case of the prosecutrix that though she was doing a Private Job, she was compelled by the petitioner to leave the said job. It was her further case that the accused had taken a room on rent for the prosecutrix and he committed sexual intercourse with her on various occasions. It is further case that, in the year 2008, the prosecutrix was selected in Police Force and was in the Training Institute. It is her further case that, even in the Training Institute, the petitioner used to visit and to have sexual intercourse with her. Out of the said relationship, the prosecutrix had become pregnant and therefore, the petitioner took her for termination of pregnancy. A First Information Report came to be lodged on 28.1.2011 by the prosecutrix making all the aforesaid allegations. At the time of framing of charge in the trial Court, the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge found that the evidence of prosecutrix was of not such a nature on the basis of which a conviction could be rested without there being any corroboration. The learned trial Judge, however, observed that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and as such, acquitted him. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition.