A. P. Bhangale, J. - (1.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur dated 1-8-2008 in Special Criminal Case No. 5/2008, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. one thousand) in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The appellant was also convicted for offence punishable under section 3(l)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for that offence the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs five hundred), in default to suffer R. I. for two months. Further the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) in default to suffer R.I. for one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. In addition, the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the prosecutrix, in view of section 357 of Criminal Procedure Code in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only).
(2.)Briefly, the prosecution case case is that the prosecutrix Santoshi Ramteke (PW 1) aged about 14 years was studying in 8th standard in Jijamata Vidyalaya, Butibori had gone to bus-stand of Borkhedi on 20-9-2007 at about 11.00 a. m. She had missed her bus for going to attend her school. Thereafter the accused came there by his Maroti van of white colour. 4-5 women passengers were already sat in the van. The accused (appellant) had stopped the van near the prosecutrix and when she inquired as to whether the van is going towards Butibori, the accused replied in the affirmative as there were women passengers in the van. The prosecutrix also boarded in the van but the women passengers got down at Bramhani and the accused questioned her as to whether she is daughter of Rameshwar. Then he stopped the van and came towards her and removed her school dress including underwear. The accused also removed his clothes and established sexual intercourse with her. The accused also pressed her breast. The accused threatened her to commit her murder if she raised shouts. He had opened the door of the van and tried to carry her somewhere. She shouted. Two persons were passing from the said road on their motorcycle. They both have abused the accused saying "Tula Shobhate ka - and contacted the police on their mobile. Subsequently, the proseceitrix lodged oral report (Ex. 13) and on that basis Crime No. 174/2007 was registered under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation of the crime, P. S. I. Shri Atram referred the prosecutrix for the medical examination. PW 7 Dr. Suwarna Sapkal examined the prosecutrix and had issued medical certificate. The Investigating Officer PW 4 Atram rushed to the spot and drew the spot panchanama (Ex. 17). Thereafter the accused was arrested vide arrest panchanama (Ex. 32). Maroti van used in the offence was also seized and articles such as ladies nicker and sandal were also seized from the van. Seat cover stained with blood and school black shoes were also seized. The clothes of the accused were also seized in the course of the investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer collected evidence regarding date of birth certificate, school leaving certificate from the school of prosecutrix and her community. In the course of the investigation, blood sample, vaginal swab, crossmatch of prosecutrix were also seized. During the course of investigation the articles seized such as blood sample etc., were sent in sealed envelop. The Executive Magistrate was requested to conduct identification parade. The Medical Officer Dr. Nagrare on examination of the accused found him he was capable for intercourse. Upon completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagpur for trial for offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with further section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act 1989. The charge was accordingly framed against the accused at Exhibit 6 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused defended in the trial on the ground that he was falsely implicated on the ground that there was quarrel with the father of prosecutrix by him and that he was threatened that he would be involved in the false criminal case. In support of the case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses.
(3.)The trial Court, upon evidence led concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was raped on 20th September 2007 at about 11.30 a. m. at the Brmhhani inside the van by the accused and that the accused had also committed offence of criminal intimidation by threatening her to commit her murder when she raised shouts. It is also found established by the prosecution that the prosecutrix is belonging to Hindu Mahar community and the accused belongs to Hindu Kunbi community and the accused raped on prosecutrix and thereafter he threatened her and also insulted her after he questioned her as to whether she was daughter of Rameshwar.