PRAKASH JAGANNATH SADAMATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 28 th January 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Special Case (POCSO) No.97 of 2013 for offences punishable under Section 376(2(f) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act for the sake of brevity) apart from the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused is separately sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 11 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.2500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution and the resultant conviction of the appellant/accused, can be summarised thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/accused at sufficient length of time. He argued that Nikita, who happens to be friend of the victim female child/PW4, was very much present at the time of the incident. She is not examined by the prosecution and as such, case of the prosecution is unbelievable and unacceptable. To buttress this contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Navin Dhaniram Baraiye vs. The State of Maharashtra 2018 Cri.L.J. 3393 . The learned advocate further argued that complaint to the Sarpanch was that of eve teasing and not of rape. The First Information Report (FIR) came to be lodged after due deliberation with Hari Kadam, Police Sub-Inspector, who happens to be relative of the prosecuting party. The same is a counterblast to the apprehended case of atrocity likely to be filed by relative of the appellant/accused. The learned advocate further argued that cross-examination of the victim female child/PW4 shows that several boys by name Pakya were residing in the village and identity of the appellant/accused is not established. It is further argued that medical evidence is not supporting the case of the prosecution, and as such, the appellant/ accused is entitled for acquittal.