SUNITA MAHESH SURYAWANSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, original complainant - Smt.Sunita impugns Judgment rendered by learned Extra Joint Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.66 of 1998 whereby and whereunder respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted for offences punishable under Section 376 (g) and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were prosecuted in Sessions Case No.66 of 1998, for offence of committing gang rape on the petitioner and use of obscenities in relation to her with intention to provoke her to commit breach of peace or knowing that she would be provoked to commit breach of public peace. Both of them were tried together. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted them of the charges.

(3.) The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that the petitioner was residing with her mother at village Karajgaon at the relevant time due to strained matrimonial relations with her husband. She claimed separate maintenance allowance from her husband, by name Mahesh Suryawanshi. She had also filed a civil suit against respondent No.2 - Mukund Jadhav, for recovery of loan amount advanced to him by her. The litigations were pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Ausa (District Latur). On May 12th, 1998 she went to Ausa to consult her advocate. By about 7.30 p.m., she boarded in a S.T.Bus to return to village Karajgaon. The S.T.Bus was bound for Sastur via interjection (Pati) of Karajgaon approach road. Some other co-villagers and she alighted from the S.T.Bus and started proceeding towards the village. She trailed behind the co-villagers, who were proceeding a bit ahead. She noticed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were following her from behind. After walking distance of about a mile, the respondent No.2 - Mukund called her. She stopped for a while. Both of them, i.e. the respondent Nos.2 and 3 reached near her. Then, respondent No.2 - Mukund asked her as to why she had filed recovery suit against him. She replied that if he would pay the money borrowed by him, then she would withdraw the suit. He told her that he would not pay the money and further added "you may uproot my pubic hair". She told him that let the suit be decided by the Court and immediately started proceeding towards the village. He caught her right hand and pulled her towards him. She turned around and asked him to release her hand. He forcibly pulled her by side of the road and then respondent No.3 - Pandit caught hold of her arms. Though she tried to resist, both of them dragged her upto distance of about 25 feet. They made her to lie down on ground in a ditch. The respondent No.2 allegedly lifted her petticoat and pulled apart her legs. He abused her in filthy language and thereafter committed forcible intercourse with her. Thereafter, respondent No.3 - Pandit committed forcible intercourse with her while respondent No.2 - Mukund held her hands. In the course of scuffle, her bangles were broken and hair pin had fallen at the place in the ditch. They left her alone only after their lust was satisfied. She returned to house of her mother at about 9.00 p.m. On next day morning, she went to Latur and narrated the incident to Superintendent of Police. Her report was registered as Crime No.0/1998 and she was referred to concerned Police Station where the offence was registered vide Crime No.83/1998. Certain investigation was carried out by the Police. Consequent upon material gathered during course of the investigation, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Section 376(g) and 504 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The petitioner alleged that she was ravished by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 with a view to avenge upon her because she had filed a civil suit for recovery of loan amount of Rs.20,000/- advanced to respondent No.2 - Mukund in lieu of the land mortgaged by him with her.