STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SURESH NIVRUTTI BHUSARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-5-1984, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1983, acquitting the respondents for an offence punishable under section 376 I. P. C. and 342 I. P. C. , has preferred the present appeal under section 378 (1) Cr. P. C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as emerging from the evidence of the prosecutrix Gangubai Nisal, runs as follows :---Gangubai Nisal, P. W. 3 was married to Santu Nisal about three years prior to the incident. Ever since her marriage, she was living with Santu in village Nalegaon within the limits of Taluka Dindori, District Nasik. She was the second wife of Santu. The name of the first wife has not come in evidence. All the three respondents are also said to be residents of village Nalegaon. On 28-7-1983, her husband Santu along with his first wife had gone to the field for agricultural operations. It was decided that she would carry food to the field. At about 11/11. 30 a. m. after preparing the food, she set out for the field. On the way, she stopped at the shop of the respondent Suresh in order to buy a match-box. Before entering the shop, she kept the food and the blanket which she was carrying outside the shop. As soon as she entered the shop, she found that the three respondents namely Suresh, Sahebu and Damu were present. She asked Suresh to give a match-box. Sahebu thereupon caught hold of both her hands and dragged her inside the middle room. It appears that the shop of Suresh was housed in one of the rooms of his residential premises. Thereafter, Sahebu stuffed cloth inside her mouth; pressed her breasts; and Damu took off her sari. Then, she was subjected to the traumatic experience of being raped by all the three respondents. First Sahebu raped her. Next, Damu raped her and finally Suresh raped her. It is said that the said persons raped her after latching the door from inside. On being shown the lock (Article 2) in the Court, she identified the same. It appears that after she had been ravished, by the three respondents, her brother-in-law Shankar came to purchase a tobacco packet from the shop. He kicked the door of the shop after asking as to who was inside it. Thereupon, Suresh opened the door and took her out of the shop and sent her home after kicking her. As she was not in her senses, she did not disclose the incident to Shankar. It is alleged that while being raped, she was putting on a string of black beads around her neck and the same was broken. During the trial, she was shown the sari and blouse which she was putting on and she recognised them.

(3.) THE evidence of the prosecutrix is that after being raped, she went to her house. In the evening, her husband Santu along with his first wife came home. At that time, she was shivering. Evidence of both the prosecutrix and her husband Santu shows that she was carrying pregnancy. Santu deposed that when he reached home, she was unable to speak. But, after sometime, she disclosed to him that the respondents had raped her. Santu had a feeling that the prosecutrix may not survive. Consequently, he and his first wife started fomenting her abdomen. Next evening (evening of 29-7-1983) the prosecutrix aborted. The evidence of Santu is that on account of her pregnancy, and abortion, she was in a state of bad health.