OMKARA RAMCHANDRA ZALTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned 4th Additional Adhoc Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.187/2005, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable U/s 376(1) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. Out of the amount of fine, if recovered, Rs.8,000/- are directed to be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation U/s 357(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that the prosecutrix is handicapped girl, aged about 18/19 years. She was residing with her father and brothers in a small house situated at village Pimprala, Tahsil Muktainagar. Her father used to remain out for his work through out the day. Her younger brother is a School going boy. Her both the lower extremities are impaired due to Polio. She cannot stand up and is required to crawl. She is mentally impaired due to the cerebral Palsy. Some 2/4 days prior to festival of Deepawali in 2004, the appellant entered her house while she was alone. He got closed the door from inside. She attempted to cry for help but was silenced by the appellant under threat to cause her death. He ravished her in that evening. He left the house without being noticed by the others. She was dumbstruck due to the sudden incident of rape. She, however, got mopped stains of blood from earthen flooring and controlled herself. She did not inform anything to her father due to fear of his angry reaction. The appellant thereafter, continued to visit her house on some occasions as and when she was alone at the house, and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on 3/4 occasions. The appellant, in his such last attempt, entered her house in or about the noon of 20/22.7.2005, and repeated the act of sexual intercourse. He told her not to cry and create scene. He told her that she was not suffering at that time and hence, should keep quiet. He left the house by about 5 p.m. The prosecutrix narrated the incident, thereafter, to neighbours - Shobhabai and Rakhamabai. The said women disclosed about such acts of the appellant to her father. Thereafter, her father and brother took her to Muktainagar Police Station. The Police recorded her statement as F.I.R. She was referred for clinical examination. After certain investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable U/s 376(1) of the I.P.C. and U/s 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh.2). His defence was one of simple denial. He asserted that he has been framed in a false case.