BHIMA HARIBHAU SHELAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated-8th August, 2007 in Sessions Trial No. 157/2006 thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as under; That the prosecutrix aged nine years was residing at Indiranagar Lasalgaon with her step mother. That on29th June, 2006 the step mother of the prosecutrix told her that she would not lookafter her and as such she came to Ahemadnagar Railway Station from Lasalgaon. She halted at platform of Railway Station Ahemadnagar in the night. It is the prosecution case that on the morning of 30th June, 2006 she was awaken from sleep at Railway Station Ahemadnagar. THEreafter on that day at about 02-00 p. m. when she came near flyover bridge, one person i. e. , accused met her. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused told her to come to his house and took her towards Babool tree situated near stream and thereafter he had removed her clothes. THE accused pressed her breast due to which she started shouting. THE accused thereafter beat her. It is alleged that thereafter the accused inserted his penis in the vagina of the prosecutrix due to which blood started oozing. It is the prosecution case that thereafter she started running away and the accused was running behind her. It is further the case that some persons caught hold the prosecutrix and also caught hold the accused by chasing him. THEy made a phone call to Child line. One Anil Gawade came there. Said Anil Gawade asked the name of prosecutrix and of accused. THE accused disclosed his name as Bhima Haribhau Shelar. THE said Anil Gawade produced the prosecutrix and the accused before Smt. Suvarna Kulkarni, the Superintendent of Child Welfare Department. THE said Superintendent made enquiry with the prosecutrix and the matter was reported to the police. THE police recorded complaint of the prosecutrix in writing.

(3.) Shri. Shinde learned APP on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused. He submits that the conviction can be based upon sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that in the present case, the version of the prosecutrix is wholly corroborated by the evidence of PW-3 Samir and PW-2 Umesh. He further submits that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment.