DURYODHAN CHAITU MESHRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant takes exception to his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. two thousand or in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. Imposed upon him, by learned Adhoc Additional sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial no. 17/2006, before him.

(2.) Facts which led to prosecution and conviction of the appellant are extremely distressing: the appellant is father of prosecutrix, who was at the relevant time a school going child, aged about fifteen years. The appellant is alleged to have perpetrated rape upon the prosecutrix for a period spread over July to october, 2005. Pregnancy of the prosecutrix had become visible. The prosecutrix and her mother allegedly reported the matter to Police patil, who took them to the Police Station where a report was lodged. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and later on, by her and her mother's consent, the pregnancy was terminated. Foetus was preserved for DNA finger printing. Sample of blood of the prosecutrix was also drawn for this purpose. The appellant had been arrested and sample of blood of the appellant was also drawn for the purpose of DNA finger printing. These samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, which returned the finding that the appellant and the prosecutrix were, respectively, biological father and mother of the foetus. The police had also performed panchanama of the spot, recorded statements of witnesses and taken other necessary steps in course of the investigation. Upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Judicial magistrate First Class, Sakoli, who committed the case to the Court of Session, Bhandara. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charge-sheeted the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Penal Code, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence of these witnesses in light of defence of denial raised by the appellant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced him as indicated above. He acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under section 506 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved by his Conviction and sentence the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) P. W. 4, Manda, mother of the prosecutrix, turned hostile. She stated that the age of the prosecutrix was twenty one years at the time of incident. She stated that there used to be quarrels between her and the appellant and therefore, she had gone to the Police Station and told the police about the quarrel. She claimed ignorance as to why police came to her house or arrested the appellant or whether the prosecutrix was taken to hospital by police. She stated that nothing had happened to the prosecutrix. She was declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned A. P. P. However, she did not budge from her version that nothing that happened to her daughter. Long after she was cross-examined and her evidence was over she was recalled at the instance of the Court, in order to ascertain name of the prosecutrix and she admitted that the prosecutrix was also named by another name. The prosecutrix herself was examined as P. W. 7 and she too turned hostile denying that her father-appellant had ravished her. She stated that she had gone with her mother to the Police station because there was a quarrel between her parents. She stated that her signatures were obtained by the police on fifteen blank papers, adding that her signature was taken on the blank paper and fourteen papers on which something was scribed. She too turned hostile and was cross-examined extensively by the learned a. P. P. but refused to go along with prosecution case. She, however, admitted that she had given her photograph when police demanded it and that one form from the Forensic Science laboratory had her photograph on it. She also admitted that her mother had signed on one of the forms in her presence. She denied that sample of her blood was taken or that she was pregnant. She admitted that she wanted that her father should be acquitted, but denied that for this reason she was deposing falsely.