RAJU DEORAO BHURSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears on behalf of the applicant/accused. Non bailable warrant was issued by this Court on 12.09.2018. It was not served. This Court, on 30.11.2018, issued bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/-. It is duly served on the applicant/accused. Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli reported about the service of bailable warrant to the applicant/accused. Even though, the applicant remains absent. His Counsel also remains absent. Revision is of the year 2007. Hence, with the assistance of Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the matter is being decided finally.

(2.) Learned APP has pointed out the judgment of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli on 07th March, 2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2006. Learned APP has submitted that there was no dispute about the sexual intercourse by the applicant/accused. The only dispute in respect of age of the prosecutrix. As per the defence of accused, she was more than 16 years at the time of incident. But, it is brought on record by birth certificate (Exh. 27) that she was born on 30th October, 1983 and incident took place on 20.01.1999 which shows that she was aged about 15 years 02 months and 20 days. Therefore, it is clear that she was below 16 years of age at the time of incident. Therefore, her consent is immaterial for sexual intercourse.

(3.) Shri Gangane, learned APP has further submitted that very lenient view is taken by the trial Court while convicting the accused. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/-. He has submitted that there is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.