SANTOSH CHANDRAKANT ADAGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Accused/Appellant has challenged the Judgment of conviction in Sessions Case No.30 of 2005 dated 29.12.2005 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. directing to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

(2.) The accused and the victim are resident of Akeriwadi, Taluka Daund known to each other. The victim has studied up to 6th standard and was performing house hold activities. While the accused is a labour and having marital status. On 24.2.2005 when the victim had gone to collect grass in the agricultural field of Machchindra Tule nearby her house, the accused known to her, followed her, he hold her from behind, took the victim inside the sugar cane crop and against her will committed rape on her. Due to which, her gown got stained with blood, she washed the same including her nicker when the accused was come out of the field followed by the victim, the complainant Smt. Ashabai Shivaji Mhaske, mother of the victim saw victim. The victim conveyed her mother about sexual assault and getting apparels blood stained. The complainant went home brought other set of apparels which victim wore while the blood stains clothes were kept on the bandh of the land. Report (Exhibit 16) was lodged. During the course of investigation, PW-7 Rajendra K. Mokashi, A.P.I. carried spot panchanama (Exhibit 24) in the night and collected earth mixed with blood, the sample earth, pieces of broken bangles and the clothes of victim. The accused was put under arrest and his apparels were taken charge. He was also medically examined. The seized apparels alongwith other articles were sent to the office of C.A. and the reports are received at Exhibits 30 to 32. The prosecution claimed that the victim was 14 years of age and being a minor could not be a concenting party to the event of sexual abuse occasioned in the agricultural field.

(3.) After commital of the case, charge was explained to the accused below Exhibit 7 to which he pleaded not guilty and his plea is recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Exhibit 8.