RAGHUNATH NARAYAN PATEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-405
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on November 02,2017

Raghunath Narayan Patekar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K. Tahilramani, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 17.7.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 376, 325, 392 and 394 of IPC. For the offence under Section 376 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/- i/d S.I. for six months, for the offence under Section 325 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.I. for three months, for the offence under Section 392 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default R.I. for six months and for the offence under Section 394 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- in default R.I. for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: (1) Marriage of the prosecutrix i.e. PW 1 took place on 2.6.2010 with one Dattaram. Dattaram was resident of village Kapare in District Ratnagiri. The parents of the prosecutrix resided in village Anjanwel, Taluka Guhagar Dist. Ratnagiri. The prosecutrix was about 21 years of age on the date of the incident. (2) On 17.6.2010, the prosecutrix had gone to her parental house with her father. On 21.6.2010, she came along with her father to Guhagar. From Guhagar she came along with her father to Ganesh-Khind by Chiplun S.T. Bus. At about 10.15 a.m. Maldoli Bus came to Ganesh-Khind. In order to go to her matrimonial house, she along with other passengers boarded the said Bus. Her father told the conductor that as she was new, the conductor should tell her to alight at Suparibaug Kapare. One of the passengers who boarded the Bus, told her father that he was also going to the same place, hence, he would tell the prosecutrix to alight at the same place. That person was the appellant. Then the prosecutrix sat on the last seat of the S.T. Bus. The appellant who had spoken to her father, sat next to her. He told the prosecutrix that he knew her husband. He paid for her fare. After travelling for half an hour, the appellant told the prosecutrix to alight at one spot. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the appellant started walking. They walked for about 1 km. The appellant then told the prosecutrix to stop below one tamarind tree. He went into one house and after some time, returned back. He then asked the prosecutrix to come with him. She went with him with her bag. Thereafter they reached near the forest. The appellant then caught her hand. The prosecutrix questioned him why he was behaving in this manner. The appellant then twisted her hand and made her fall down on the ground. There were stones lying on the spot, due to which, the prosecutrix sustained injuries below both her eyes. The appellant then removed her clothes and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix was shouting for help but there was nobody nearby. Thereafter the appellant wore his clothes. He snatched ornaments which were on the prosecutrix i.e. Mangalsutra, earring, ring and bangles. The appellant inserted some stones in the private parts of the prosecutrix. Then he took stone and assaulted the prosecutrix. Thereafter he took umbrella, saree and ornaments of the prosecutrix and ran away from the spot. On hearing the shouts of the prosecutrix, some women including PW 2 Sujata reached the spot. They took the prosecutrix to their village. They enquired about her name and village. Then they telephoned the Sarpanch of her village. Sarpanch of her village and other persons came and took her to Kamathe hospital at Chiplun. Police then came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix which was treated as FIR (Exh.20). The prosecutrix gave the description of the appellant. She also informed the police that the appellant was some-what bald and his age was about 45 to 50 years. The appellant came to be arrested on the same day. The appellant was sent for medical examination. Fresh injuries were found on the appellant. He was examined by PW 11 Dr. Prafulla Mishra. Dr. Mishra found seven injuries on his person which were mostly scratch marks. During the course of investigation, at the instance of the appellant, the ornaments of the prosecutrix came to be recovered. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 376, 307, 392 and 394 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in the present case, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal. It may be stated here that the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 325 of IPC instead of offence under Section 307 of IPC as the offence under Section 307 of IPC was not proved against the appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.