SUDHAKAR DOMAJI HAZARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-131
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 05,2017

Sudhakar Domaji Hazare Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SWAPNA JOSHI,J. - (1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.61 of 1996 delivered on 04-07-2003, thereby the learned trial Judge had convicted the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- each, in default to suffer imprisonment for three months.
(2.) I have heard Mr. N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The appellants and the learned Counsel for the appellants remained absent. With the assistance of the learned APP, I have gone through the entire record.
(3.) The facts leading to prefer this appeal can be summarised as under :- The prosecutrix was residing with her husband and two children at village Antargaon, Taluka Sawali, District Chandrapur. The appellants (hereafter referred as the accused) are also residents of the same village. The incident took place on 17-01-1996. At the time of incident, Vandana was in her house along with her children. Her husband (PW-6) had gone out of the house. The prosecutrix had dinner with her husband and thereafter her husband went out to the Pan Stall and the prosecutrix went to sleep along with her small daughter on the bed. At about 8.00 pm or 8.30 pm, when the prosecutrix was resting in her house, she had simply shut the door without bolting it from inside as her husband was expected to return shortly. At that time she suddenly felt some weight on her body. Therefore, she opened her eyes and saw the appellant no.1 lying on her person. The appellant caught hold of her both hands and asked the prosecutrix for sexual favour. He also threatened that if she refused to do so, he would kill her. On this, the prosecutrix got frightened. The prosecutrix, therefore, could not raise any alarm. At that time the prosecutrix noticed accused no.2. She tried to shout. However, accused no.2 immediately gagged her mouth. It is the case of the prosecution that at that time both the appellants threatened her that if she did not allow them to have sexual intercourse with her they would kill her as well as her husband. Thereafter, the appellant no.1 removed her clothes. The appellant also removed his clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the appellant no.2 committed forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix. At that time the appellant no.1 gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix. After satisfying their lust, both the appellants released the prosecutrix. They again threatened her by saying that, she should keep her mouth shut or otherwise they would kill her & her husband. Thereafter, the appellants fled away from the place of incident. It is the case of the prosecution that, while leaving the house of the prosecutrix the appellants stated that they had sexual intercourse with wife of Patru on that day and next time it would be the turn of wife of Patru's brother. The appellant then left that place. On hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, her brothers in law namely Kavindra (PW-7) came to the house of the prosecutrix. They asked her as to what had happened. At that time the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to them. By that time the husband of the prosecutrix also returned home. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to him. Since it was night time, the prosecutrix did not go to the Police Station and so also the distance between the village Antargaon to Pathari Police Station was 10 to 12 Kms., therefore, on the next day morning the prosecutrix along with her husband proceeded to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. At the relevant time, PSI-Nandkishor Shelke (PW-10) the Investigating Officer was attached to the Police Station Pathari. He recorded the complaint of the prosecutrix (Exhibit-9). On the basis of the said complaint, the offence was registered under Sections 376(2)(g), 452 and 506 of the IPC vide Crime No.7 of 1996. He referred the prosecutrix for medical examination. He arrested both the accused and referred to them for their medical examination. He visited the place of incident and recorded the spot panchanama (Exhibit-11). From the place of incident, he took charge of pieces of broken bangles and mattress. From the complainant he took charge of her clothes under seizure panchanama (Exhibit-12). PW-10 recorded the statements of the witnesses. He took charge of the clothes of the accused and the appellants. All the seized articles were sent to C.A. by the investigating agency. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. The learned trial Judge framed the charge. After conducting the trial, on analysis and appreciation of the evidence & hearing both the sides, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants/accused as aforesaid.;


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