DATTATRAY @ KASHINATH BABASO KHATAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd August 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.59 of 2009, thereby convicting the appellant/accused of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.

(2.) Brief facts, leading to the prosecution and resultant conviction as well as imposition of sentence on the appellant/accused, can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. By taking me through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, he argued that evidence of the prosecutrix/PW1 is unworthy of keeping reliance. Her evidence suffers from infirmity and improbability. She had not suffered any injury in the wake of allegation of jumping from the motorcycle as well as forcible sexual intercourse on rough surface. Her briefcase was also not found on the spot of the incident. The learned counsel further took me through evidence of DW1 Lakhan Khatal and argued that amount of Rs.2 lakh was extracted from the family of the appellant/accused by the prosecuting party with a further demand of Rs.5 lakh. The entire meeting between DW1 Lakhan Khatal and father of the prosecutrix/PW1 was videographed. The prosecutrix/PW1 has admitted the fact that the person seen in the Compact Disk is her father. It is further argued that no semen of the appellant/accused was extracted, and therefore, the forensic evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution.