SHRINIVAS RAJABHAU RAMGIRIWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant accused is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.6.2007 rendered by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Special Case 6 of 2002, by and under which, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and is further convicted for offence punishable under section 417 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/.

(2.) Heard Shri Rajnish Vyas, the learned counsel for the accused and Smt. S.P. Kolhe, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.

(3.) The prosecutrix, who belongs to the Pardhan - scheduled tribe, lodged oral report dated 28.3.2003 at the Aheri Police Station alleging that the accused induced her to have sexual intercourse promising marriage and that when she conceived, the accused refused to marry her. On the basis of the oral report Exh. 13, the Aheri Police registered offence punishable under section 376 of the Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("Atrocities Act" for short). Upon culmination of the investigation, chargesheet for offence under section under section 376 of the Penal Code and section 3(1)(xii) of Atrocities Act was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh. 7) for offence punishable under section 376, 417 of Penal Code and under section 3(1)(xii) of the Atrocities Act. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. In the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defence is of false implication. The motive for false implication is stated to be a dispute between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix over payment of amount of goods purchased on credit from the accused. However, the suggestions given to the prosecutrix would reveal that the accused admitted sexual relationship. The suggestions given to the prosecutrix are that the sexual relationship was consensual and the accused and the prosecutrix were in love. The accused is convicted as afore stated.