SADASHIO S/O RENGO KOTANGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER, POLICE STATION SAKOLI, TAHSIL SAKOLI, DISTRICT BHANDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 7.10.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Sessions Trial 82 of 2012, 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 a period of 7 years and to payment of fine of Rs. 1000/ and is further convicted of offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/.

(2.) Heard Shri. Akash Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused Shri. Akash Gupta submits, that the judgment and order impugned militates against the weight of evidence on record. The prosecution has not proved, much less beyond reasonable doubt, that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, is the submission. The learned counsel would submit that the evidence of the prosecutrix is inconsistent with the medical evidence and is not corroborated, au contraire, is rendered suspect, by the spot panchanama and the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel for the accused would further submit, that the finding recorded by the learned Sessions judge that the accused caused grievous hurt to the prosecutrix by pouring corrosive substance (acid) into the vagina is not consistent with the oral and circumstantial evidence on record. The learned counsel for the accused Shri. Akash Gupta would urge, arguendo and in the alternate, that even if the entire evidence is accepted at face value, the offence made out would at the most be under section 354 and 324 of IPC.