GANPAT HARI SHELAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these connected criminal appeals arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment we are disposing them off by one judgment. Through these appeals the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 29th September,1994 passed by the 2nd additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.231 of 1994, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter: i)Under section 376 (2) (g) of the I. P. C. to suffer R. I. for 10 years; ii)Under section 366 read with 34 IPC to suffer R. I. for 5 years; and iii)Under section 506 (ii) read with 34 I. P. C. but no separate sentence.

(2.) IN short the prosecution case runs as follows: The victim Mandabai Dalvi P. W. 1 at the time of the incident was residing in INdira Nagar, Kalyan District, Thane. Her husband was employed in a factory of rolling shutters at Kalyan and his duty hours were 8.30 a. m. to 9 p. m. She had two sons Harischandra P. W. 2 and Sanjay. On 21st October, 1991 at about 9 to 9.30 a. m. the appellants who were her relations came to her house. At that time she was at the house of her neighbour Sakhubai Chavan. A boy residing in the vicinity informed her about the arrival of the appellants. On receiving the information she went to her house. The appellants informed her that her brother's wife was ill and was at village Khalegaon at the house of her parents and that she was called at Village Khalegaon to see her. They asked her to accompany them. Accordingly she agreed. She proceeded alongwith the appellants in a rickshaw up to Shahad station which they reached at about 10.30 a. m. and thereafter accompanied them to Khadivali by train. At Khadiwali station they waited for a bus to take them to Khalegaon but the bus did not arrive till 1 p. m. at which time they decided to proceed for Village Khalegaon on foot. When at about 2 p. m. while she was proceeding with the appellants to Khalegaon and reached a jungle the appellant Kundalik caught hold of her hands and appellant Ganpat forced her to lie down on the ground. The appellants removed her clothes as also theirs. First appellant Kundalik committed rape on her and thereafter appellant Ganpat. When she resisted Kundalik raping her, appellant Ganpat threatened her saying that he would pour kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. After raping her appellant Ganpat asked appellant Kundalik to bring liquor from the village. The liquor was brought by him and both of them drank it. Thereafter appellant Ganpat asked appellant Kundalik to pour kerosene oil on her person but the latter refused. Appellant Ganpat took her to the house of his sister in village Ushid. She requested Ganpat's sister to reach her to Village Khalegaon and the latter reached her there. IN Khalegaon she went to the house of Anubai, the mother of her brother's wife Surekha. She told Anubai about her traumatic experience of being raped by the appellants.

(3.) THE case was committed to the court of Sessions in the usual manner where they were charged for the offences for which they have been found guilty by the learned trial judge. THEy pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.