RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 11-9-1990, passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 108 of 1989, convicting and sentencing him to a consolidated sentence of 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for 6 months, for offences under section 323, 376 and 506 I. P. C. At the very outset, I would like to remark that the learned trial Judge should have given a separate sentence on each of the three counts and a consolidated sentence is contrary to law.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix Marima Shaikh, P. W. 4 on 24-12-1988. at about 1. 30 p. m. along with her sister-in-law Khatun Hasan, P. W. 5, had gone to the field of one Shatru Naik Beldar situated in village Sarade, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara, to cut grass. After she had cut some grass, the appellant came and stood there. At that time, one person came and when the appellant tried to catch the prosecutrix, she ran towards the said person. The appellant however, told him that he would leave her and therefore, the said person went away. Thereafter, the appellant gave two slaps to Khatun who became frightened and went away. He took out a knife and asked the prosecutrix to put the grass on the ground. Thereafter, he took her towards the sugarcane crop standing in the field. She started crying. At that, he slapped her and told her that if she cried, he would kill her. He thereafter, gave slaps on her face, pushed her on the ground, lifted her petticoat, took off his clothes and raped her. At the time of committing rape on her, he had inserted a piece of cloth in her mouth. While the appellant was committing rape on her, some of the glass bangles which she was putting on were broken. After raping her, the appellant told her that in case she told anyone he would kill her. After the appellant had run away, the prosecutrix came to her house. At that time, her husband was not at home. She informed her father-in-law Imamsab, P. W. 6 and her mother-in-law, about the incident. Her father-in-law took her to the Police Patil and told him about the incident. The Police Patil told them to go to Phaltan Police Station and lodge an F. I. R. Thereafter, they came back home. At about 7 p. m. the husband of the prosecutrix came. He was also informed about the incident. A jeep was arranged for and on the same, the prosecutrix, Imamsab and her husband proceeded for police station, Phaltan. They stopped the jeep at Rajala village. The prosecutrix, saw the accused there and showed him to Imamsab and her husband. He was caught, put on the jeep and taken to the police station.

(3.) THE F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix Marima Shaikh same day at 9. 20 p. m. at police station, Phaltan. On its basis, C. R. No. 87/88, under section 376, 504 and 506 I. P. C. was registered against the appellant by P. S. I. Vithal Kulkarni, P. W. 7. The evidence of P. S. I. Kulkarni is that the complainant and others had brought the appellant with them.