JANARDAN PANDURANG KAPSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

(2.) This application is filed for suspension of sentence and for bail by the applicant, who came to be convicted for the Sonali Patil offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. Applicant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354A (1) (i) of Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. Applicant is also convicted under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and lastly punished for the offence under Section 7 punishable under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that applicant is falsely involved, as on the day of incident on 13 th December, 2017 applicant was not in his house, where the incident is alleged to have occurred on that day, since he was required to attend rituals due to death of his sister, who died on the same day and was present at sister's house throughout the day. For this submission, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon evidence of defence witness No. 1 Rajkumar J. More. Another ground put-forth by the applicant to establish his innocence and of false implication is that according to case of prosecution incident has occurred on 13th December, 2017, of which report is lodged, however no incident as alleged, has occurred on that day and it is therefore, contended that the case of prosecution is falsified on this ground also and thus, it is contended that application be allowed by granting bail to the applicant.