EKNATH PANDURANG KOLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal calls in question the legality and propriety of impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Special Case No. 26 of 2014, dated 1st April, 2016 for the offence punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 342, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("Act of 2012"). The learned trial Court imposed the resultant sentence on the appellant-accused as below :-

(2.) The prosecution case in short compass is that - the ill-fated prosecutrix - minor girl of 11 years studying in VI standard, approached to the Police of Chopada City Police Station, District Jalgaon on 16-10-2014, and ventilated the grievance that, she was residing with her mother, sister and brother in Chopda town. Her father is no more and died prior to six years. She is from Mahar community. Her mother was eking livelihood by doing labour work. The appellant-accused was residing in front of her house with his family members and they all were having visiting terms at the house of each other. It has been alleged that prior to one month of alleged incident occurred on 15-10-2014, mother, brother and sister of the prosecutrix had been to dispensary for medical treatment of their ailment. The prosecutrix was alone at home. The appellant-accused seizing the opportunity barged into the house of prosecutrix under pretext to have sugar. The appellant-accused put latch to the door from inside of the house. Thereafter, appellant forced the prosecutrix to remove her clothes. The prosecutrix made endeavour to resist the accused. She also tried to yell for help. But, appellant-accused pressed her mouth and threatened her not to raise shout. He, thereafter, forcibly ravished the minor prosecutrix sexually. The appellant-accused give threats of dire consequences to prosecute and went away. The prosecutrix did not disclose about incident to anybody else due to apprehension on the part of appellant-accused. It has been alleged that on 15-10-2014, in the noon hours, the prosecutrix accompanied with her friend - Sunami Shital Vishwas had been to the accused for demanding kerosene oil. The accused bade the prosecutrix to come on the terrace at about 7.00 p.m. in the dusk; He had also given threat, if she fails, he will defame and tarnish the reputation of herself and her mother by making the earlier incident of her immoral relation with him public. The hapless minor prosecutrix under duress of accused went to the terrace of the house in the evening. The accused once again forcibly ravished her. The prosecutrix made an attempt to shout, but, accused put his palm on her mouth. Meanwhile, neighbour Bangali Aunti flashed the light of torch on the person of accused. On seeing Bangali Aunti, accused- appellant immediately make his escape good from the spot. There was bleeding from the private part of minor prosecutrix. She came to home in frightened condition and started weeping. She disclosed the entire episode to her mother. There were endeavour for confrontation of alleged incident with the accused in front of denizens of the area. Eventually, the mother of minor prosecutrix took her to the police station and filed report.

(3.) Pursuant to First Information Report (FIR), Police of Chopada City Police Station, District Jalgaon, registered the crime bearing No. 148 of 2014, for the offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 342 and 506 of IPC, and set the penal law in motion. The Investigation Officer (IO) visited to the spot of incident and drawn panchanama of scene of occurrence. He recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. IO seized the clothes of accused in presence of panchas. IO collected the document of date of birth certificate of the minor prosecutrix. IO also referred the prosecutrix and accused for medical examination. IO collected the documents of medical Certificate of both of them. IO recovered the C.A. report. After completion of investigation, IO preferred the charge-sheet against the accused bearing Special Case No. 26 of 2014. IO also applied the provision of Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act in this case.