NANA @ SANDEEP TUKARAM SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.69 of 2012 thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(f) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned trial Court had directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Briefs facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused can be summarized thus :

(3.) I heard Mr.Ponda, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused at sufficient length of time. He drew my attention to the evidence of defence witness Prakash Kamble and vehemently argued that evidence of this witness is sufficient to falsify the version of the child witness, in submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused, evidence of the minor female victim/P.W.No.6 is unworthy of credit and the defence evidence demonstrates that the applicant is falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is further argued that forensic evidence is not supporting the case of prosecution and the medical evidence is lacunic. It is not in tune with the medical jurisprudence. The learned Counsel further argued that the prosecution has not made out any case of procurement of a girl and, therefore, conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the appellant/accused has his family to maintain and his family comprises of small children and, therefore, this constitute adequate reason for scaling down the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused.