BALAJI BHAU KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 40/2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant came to be convicted for offence punishable under section 376(1) of the I. P. Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6) months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 2 Sangita (prosecutrix) is a young house-wife. Her husband is a truck driver. The appellant is her brother-in-law, being husband of her real sister. The appellant and his wife used to reside at village Chorakhali in the proximity of a brick-kiln with their minor child. The prosecutrix was having as son aged about eight (8) years at the material time. On 5th March, 2007, due to bickerings between herself and her husband, the prosecutrix left house of the husband along with the child with intention to go to her parental house. She, however, first went to house of the appellant and her sister insisted of going to house of her parents. Co-incidentally, there took place quarrel between her sister Lata and the appellant. Her sister left his house and proceeded to house of their parents at village Dhanora. The prosecutrix and her minor son, however, remained back at house of the appellant. On 8th March, 2007, the prosecutrix took meals in the evening and went to bed. At about mid-night, or some time prior to it, she awoke from the slumber when she noticed that someone had touched her person. She noticed that the appellant was sitting near her. She inquired with him as to why he was behaving in such a manner. He then asked her to keep quiet. He told her that he will maintain her and that they should marry. She refused his proposal. He fell on her person and attempted to press her. He thereafter pulled upword her saree and petticoat, got removed his undergarment and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In the early morning, the prosecutrix returned to the marital house at village Pathardi. She narrated the incident to her mother-in-law (PW 3 Rukminibai) and brothers-in-law, etc. Thereafter, they decided to approach the police. They went to the Police Station. Her complaint was reduced into writing vide Exh-18. It was treated as F.I.R. and offence vide Crime No. 72/2007 was registered against the appellant. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. The appellant was arrested in connection with the alleged crime. On basis of material gathered during the course of investigation, he was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under section 376 of the I.P. Code.

(3.) The appellant denied truth into the charge. According to him, prior to about three (3) years, husband of the prosecutrix had borrowed amount of Rs. 30,000/- from him on account of medical expenditure required due to his hospitalization as he was victim of an accident. He was demanding the said amount from the prosecutrix because he had taken that amount from him. In order to avoid repeated demands of the money and to deny the liability, she got him falsely involved in the case. He asserted that the prosecutrix had never visited his house as alleged nor he had forcibly ravished her during the relevant night.