DEVANAND GOVINDA GAYAKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER, POLICE STATION, BHISI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 05-09-2005, whereby the Court of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur (trial Court) convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and six months respectively on the two counts and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/ on each count. The trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No.70 of 2004, wherein the appellant had been charged with offences under Sections 376 read with Section 511 and 448 of the IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 01-03-2004, when the prosecutrix (PW3), a minor girl aged about 9 years, was alone in her house, the appellant who was a neighbour entered the house in the afternoon and took the prosecutrix inside a room and closed the door. It was alleged that the appellant made the prosecutrix to lie on a bed, removed her nicker and after removing the clothes he slept on her. It was alleged that thereafter, he made her to sit on his thighs and while doing so he threatened her with a knife. It was also alleged that the appellant gave a note of Rs. 10/ to the prosecutrix. But, when the mother of the prosecutrix i.e (PW2) arrived at the house, the appellant left the house. On the mother of prosecutrix (PW2) asking the prosecutrix (PW3) about the incident, she narrated the details to her, on the basis of which, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW2) along with the prosecutrix went to the Police Station for registering the complaint. In the Police Station at Bhisi, a preliminary report of occurrence was recorded, in which it was stated that the appellant had removed the clothes of the prosecutrix with an intention to commit sexual intercourse and that he had outraged her modesty. On this basis, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the appellant under Sections 354, 448 and 509 of the IPC.

(3.) The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and she was examined by the Doctor (PW8). The report at Exhibit38 recorded that there was no injury to the body of prosecutrix or her genitals and that there were no stains of blood or semen on the clothes. It was recorded in the report that rape might not have taken place but the victim was likely to have been molested. In support of the prosecution case, seven witnesses were examined and defence examined two witnesses.