THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RUPRAO @ GAJANAN DEVRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal challenging judgment and order dated 2.11.2007 passed by the Sessions Court, Buldana, whereby the respondent (accused) has been acquitted of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, was that the prosecutrix (PW.1) approached the police on 2.8.2006 claiming that the respondent with whom she was allegedly in love committed acts of forcible sexual intercourse with her on 14.4.2006 and 15.4.2006 and thereafter by giving an allurement of marriage he again committed sexual intercourse with her on 15.7.2006. On this basis, an FIR was registered against the respondent and the police undertook investigation. Upon filing of charge-sheet, the respondent was charged on 4.7.2007 for having committed offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code on the aforesaid three dates. In support of its case, prosecution examined five witnesses of whom the material witnesses were the prosecutrix PW.1 and her mother PW.2.

(3.) In her deposition before the Court, the prosecutrix (PW.1) claimed that on 14.4.2006 and 15.4.2006 the respondent forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and that she had shouted loudly when such incidents occurred. She also claimed that on 30.7.2006 respondent called her to his house and again committed sexual intercourse with her. It was her statement in the examination-in-chief that throughout these incidents the respondent was threatening her that he would not marry her if she did not cooperate with him for such acts, but in the cross-examination it has come on record that the said witness had not mentioned anything about the respondent forcibly committing sexual intercourse with her or that she had shouted when such incidents occurred and further that the respondent had threatened her of not marrying if she did not perform the acts with him. These omissions were put to the Investigating Officer and they stood proved.