MAHADEO KERBA MASKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No.5/2006, whereby appellant came to be convicted for offences punishable U/s 363, 376 and 506 of the I.P.Code. For the offence punishable U/s 363 he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months. For offence punishable U/s 376, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two (2) years. For offence punishable U/s 506, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the appeal are that prosecutrix (P.W.3) was aged about 16 years and was studying in XIth standard in a Junior College. Her father is a Police Head Constable. She used to reside with her parents, sister and two younger brothers in a Government quarter of her father, situated in Police Line at Latur. She had flair for music. She used to participate in singing of Bhajans (religious songs). The appellant is a musician and singer. He developed acquaintance with her due to her participation in Bhajan programmes alongwith him and because she was fond of music. He allured her that both of them would become famous artists if she would accompany him to Hyderabad for preparing audio cassettes of her Bhajans and songs. He painted rosy picture of making her a famous singer. Initially, she had declined the proposal but his persuasiveness prevailed. In the morning of 18th September 2005, her father left to attend his duty, her mother and sister had gone to Pune and there was none at her house when the appellant came there. Then she was about to leave to attend the College. He informed her that there was congregation of many artists at Hyderabad and she shall accompany him to get her audio cassettes prepared. He asked her to take money with her for required expenditure for preparing the number of audio cassettes. She informed him that she had no money in the house. He induced her to take ornaments if money was not available. She collected ornaments from the house and went with him. He took her to Hyderabad and therefrom to house of her relatives at Karnool. In the wee hours, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in the house of his relative. Though she attempted to resist, he warned that she was at a long distance from her native place and none would come to rescue her. She was ravished from time to time during the period of about one month and 20 days of their stay at Karnool (A.P.). She could seek help of anyone because his relatives and neighbours knew only Telgu language which she was not knowing. Her father had lodged a report at Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, initially about her missing from the house and subsequently about his suspicion that she was kidnapped by one Umesh Tompe, who was suspected as her lover boy, his mother and the appellant . The appellant thereafter returned to Latur alongwith the prosecutrix. The Police took the prosecutrix in custody and sent her for clinical examination. The appellant was arrested. Consequent upon necessary investigation, he was charge-sheeted for the offences of kidnapping, rape and criminal intimidation.

(3.) To the charge (Exh.4), the appellant "pleaded not guilty". He denied truth into the accusations. He submitted that a false case is framed against him. He denied to have allured the prosecutrix to go with him in the relevant morning. He also denied to have ravished her at residential house of his relative during their stay at Karnool. It is suggested by the defence that the prosecutrix was major at the relevant time and might have left with the appellant on her own volition.