ASARAM RANGNATH JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 34/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 377, 342, 323 and 506 of the I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months on first count, rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months on 2nd count, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months on 3rd count, to undergo imprisonment for three (3) months on 4th count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months on the 5th count. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The hapless victim is a minor girl. Her father is an agricultural labour. Her father was engaged by one Bapurao Gawali to work as a labour in his agricultural field bearing Gat No. 11 situated at Kesapuri. The village Kesapuri is situated at a distance of about 4/5 Km. away from township of Majalgaon but is practically part of the township due to development of the town towards that side. The father of the victim, namely, P.W. 6 Sk. Mahboob use to reside in a small three rooms farm house alongwith other two servants of his Master. There were two other servants, namely, P.W. 4 Laxman and deceased Rangnath. The victim had left Schooling in the midst while she was in 6th standard and had started residing with her father since few days prior to the relevant night.

(3.) The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that in the night of June 16, 2006, the victim (P.W. 1 Mumtaj), her father (P.W. 6 Sk. Maheboob) and other two servants were preparing to go to bed in the farm house. At about 10.30 p.m. three persons came to the agricultural field on a motor-cycle. Those three persons had brought a piglet with them. They demanded some dry raw cotton plants. P.W. 4 Laxman indicated place where some stack of dry cotton plants was kept. Those three persons, including the appellant, took away some dry cotton plants. They set fire to a bunch of the dry plants at a place situated approximately about 150 ft. away from the farm house. They roasted the piglet on the fire. They barbecued the piglet. After a little while, two of them left the agricultural field on the motor-cycle, whereas the appellant remained behind.