Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present Appeals are preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 26/2/2002 thereby convicting him (the accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as "IPC"). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer mms 2/22 (903) APEAL 491-02 with APEAL 345-02 imprisonment of 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 376, sentence of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 363 and for a period of 6 months each for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 342 of IPC respectively. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Today the matter is taken up for final hearing. Shri Abhaykumar Apte is representing the appellant and learned APP Shri Ajay Patil is representing the State. In order to appreciate the contentions raised in Appeal, it would be necessary to briefly refer mms 3/22 (903) APEAL 491-02 with APEAL 345-02 to the case of the prosecution and the findings recorded by the Sessions Court about the guilt of the appellant.

7. On registration of the complaint, spot panchanama was carried out and the clothes of the prosecutrix came to be seized. The accused was arrested on 7/8/2000 and his clothes came to be seized under the Seizure Panchanama. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial commenced.

During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. The prosecutrix/complainant has been examined as PW 1. PW 3 is the brother of the complainant and PW 5 is the mother of the complainant. Two doctors have been examined by the prosecution as PW 8 to give an opinion about the age of the prosecutrix and PW 9 for the purpose of determining as to whether forceful sexual intercourse has been committed on the complainant. The prosecution has also placed reliance on 2 documents in the form of the School Leaving Certificate and extract of the School Register for demonstrating that the prosecutrix on the date of incident was below 18 years. Arun Shinde, a Clerk working in the school, who brought the record of mms 5/22 (903) APEAL 491-02 with APEAL 345-02 the school reflecting the date of birth, was examined as PW 4. With this material, brought on record, an attempt of the prosecution was to demonstrate that the prosecutrix, who is below 16 years of age was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused person and the occurrence of the said incident is corroborated by the medial evidence from the examination of the PW 9, who had clearly opined that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. On the basis of the said material being placed, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, the said Court found that the prosecution has proved its case by tendering cogent and reliable evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the entire evidence tendered on record, both oral as well as documentary evidence and also examined the legal position as regards the age of the prosecutrix and the burden to be discharged as regards the age factor. On conclusion, the learned Trial Court concluded that the accused had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and the statement of the prosecutrix alongwith the corroborative material was found to be trustworthy and based on this, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 363 r/w 506 of IPC. It is mms 6/22 (903) APEAL 491-02 with APEAL 345-02 against this judgment, the present Appeals are preferred.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has perused the entire paper book consisting the evidence on record as well as the documents, which have been produced and exhibited before the Trial Court. PW 1 i.e. the mms 9/22 (903) APEAL 491-02 with APEAL 345-02 complainant, who has been examined by the Trial Court gave a detailed narration of the ordeal and she has deposed before the Court that when she was all alone at home, the appellant forcibly carried her to the field on his shoulder and in order to prevent her from seeking any help, he had put the handkerchief/piece of cloth in her mouth. The testimony of PW 1 further reveals that she was taken to a field where sugarcane crop was standing and the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened her to kill her, in case she make any noise. She then states that in-spite of she trying to resist, she was unsuccessful and the incident was repeated 2 to 3 times. She also stated that there was white discharge on her nicker. The evidence further states that at the same night, at about 10 p.m., accused again committed the act of intercourse and they were in that field upto 4 p.m. on 6/8/2000. Thereafter the accused left her by tiding her hands and legs with the piece of cloth and putting the cloth ball in her mouth. However, some how she managed to untie herself and she reached home. Then she narrated the incident to her parents, which resulted in filing the First Information Report. The said witness has been subjected to extensive cross-examination. Further a suggestion has been given to this witness about her date of birth and she had categorically denied that on the day of mms 10/22 (903) APEAL 491-02 with APEAL 345-02 incident, her age was between 17 to 17 ½ years. The version of the prosecutrix is corroborated by PW 3 - brother and PW 5- mother. PW 3, the brother of the prosecutrix has categorically stated before the Court that he was at the house till 1 p.m. with her sister. However he had to leave house on account of some work and when at about 3 p.m., he returned to home, he was not able to find his sister there and on returning of his father at about 5 p.m., they lodged the missing complaint at Mandavgan out post and undertook a rigorous search for the complainant. His testimony is further corroborated by PW 5 - mother, who has been examined by the prosecution and who has given the details of frantic search carried out when the complainant went missing on 5/8/2000. The testimony of the said witness has gone unchallenged and stands corroborated by the testimony of PW 1, who had categorically stated that the missing complaint was lodged after her disappearance by her family members.