SAGAR RAMCHANDRA SALOKHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant vide Judgment and Order dated 6th June, 2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - 4, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.142 of 2010, has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the Judgment of conviction and sentence on several grounds. He submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the case as against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the medical evidence on record does not support the prosecution case i.e. of attempt to commit rape. He submitted that there are no external injuries on the victim girl and that the medical evidence completely falsifies the prosecution case. He submitted that the medical certificate shows that there were no signs of any abrasion and laceration on her private parts and that the redness i.e. Erythema was possible because of friction of the underwear and that the said possibility has not been ruled out by the prosecution. He submitted that there was motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant, inasmuch as, the appellant had seen the complainant (PW1) in a compromising position with her brother-in-law (PW5) - Dnyandev. He submitted that the other motive for falsely implicating the appellant is the dispute between the appellant's family and the complainant's family, on account of drawing water from the well. He submitted that no independent witness has been examined in support of the incident that allegedly took place on 7th May, 2010. He submitted that adverse inference ought to be drawn for nonexamination of any independent witness. He submitted that the victim girl, aged 4 years has also not been examined by the prosecution to show that any such incident as alleged has taken place. He submitted that recovery of a nicker, at the instance of the appellant is doubtful, inasmuch as, the complainant (PW1) i.e. mother of the victim girl would never have handed over the nicker to the appellant's mother. He submitted that the said act of the complainant (PW1) is extremely unnatural. According to the learned counsel, there are several contradictions in the evidence of the complainant (PW1) and PW5 - Dnyandev, with respect to the incident. He submitted that the offence, if any, would be one under Sec. 354 of the I.P.C and not under Sections 376 r/w 511 of the I.P.C. He further submitted that the report of the Chemical Analyzer is also inconclusive.