NITIN PANDIT SAPKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the 10th additional Sessions Court, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 487/2002. By the said judgment and order dated 30th August, 2003, the trial court was pleased to convict the accused-the appellant herein for the offences punishable under sections 376 (2) (f), 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for 10 years and one year, respectively.

(3.) Thereafter, a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 16th September, 2002. In the supplementary statement, complainant Anita informed the police that about 8 days before the first complaint, the accused had called the prosecutrix and had committed rape on her and this fact was told by the prosecutrix to the complainant on 16th September. The prosecutrix was thereafter sent to Sassoon Hospital for medical examination. Clothes were also produced by the father of the prosecutrix on 16th September, 2002. Spot panchanama was prepared thereafter and seized muddemal was sent for Chemical analyser's report and after the investigation was over, offence of section 376 was added to the initial complaint which was filed on 14th September, 2002 for the offence under sections 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. . Thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Prosecution examined six witnesses, viz. PW 1 Anita Sutar - complainant and mother of the prosecutrix, PW 2 Ankita Sutar -prosecutrix, PW 3 Dr. Bhushan B. Rao - Medical Officer, PW 4 Pandurang B. Dangar who was the panch witness, PW 5 Ramchandra S. Kadam - Investigating officer who carried out the investigation and PW 6 Popatrao N. Bhagat who was police Hawaldar. The trial court on the basis of this evidence held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offence of rape and taking into consideration the provisions of section 376 (2) (f) imposed the minimum sentence of 10 years for the said offence and also convicted him for the offence under section 506 for a period of one year.