RAJENDRA BHIMA ASUDEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused, by this appeal, is challenging the judgment and order dated 14th February 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Special (Child) Sessions Case No.11 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant/accused of offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) as well as under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000/and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, he is awarded rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years is awarded to the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused, can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/accused at sufficient length of time. She took me through evidence of PW2 Savita as well as PW3 Pallavi Basutkar and argued that evidence of both these witnesses is consistent. PW3 Pallavi Basutkar has clarified as to when she met PW2 Savita and what was the point of time of such meeting. Disclosure made by PW3 Pallavi Basutkar to PW2 Savita reflected from the FIR Exhibit 13 is in tune with the oral evidence adduced by these witnesses. It is further argued that the appellant/accused is falsely implicated in the crime in question as he had built temple in the locality and this fact is liked by Sunita Nemoor, who happens to be the local leader. It is further argued that the FIR is delayed and despite availability of the victim child, her statement came to be recorded belatedly. Medical examination of the victim child is also delayed and was conducted on 24th March 2013. Even the Medico Legal Certificate shows that the incident was first disclosed to Sunita Nemoor. The learned advocate further argued that evidence on record shows that said Sunita Nemoor was present right from lodging the FIR till conclusion of the investigation. However, she has been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, father of the victim child is also examined by the prosecution. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant/accused that evidence of defence witness Poonam Asudeo shows that the grandmother of the appellant/accused used to remain present in the house throughout, and therefore, it was possible for the appellant/accused to commit the alleged crime in his house. Therefore, the appellant/accused is entitled to acquittal.