RAJENDRA ALIAS RAJU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJENDRA @ RAJU
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajendra Babu, J. -
(1.)Delay in filing special leave is condoned.
(3.)The prosecution case is that on 5-6-1997 P.W. 1 Shahnaz Bano along with her daughter Sabana Bano P.W. 22 went to Jaswant Talkies at Nagpur to watch matinee show which was over by 3 p.m.; that as the said P.W. 1 and P.W. 22 emerged out of the theatre, the appellant, who was going on road on a scooter No. MFW 9252 Bajaj Super, having seen them, is stated to have stopped the scooter and offered to give lift to them on his scooter up to their house; that when P.W. 1 declined to accept his offer, the appellant is stated to have threatened P.W. 1 that he would kill her by pointing out a knife at her; that on account of the fright created by the appellant. P.W. 1 is stated to have gone with him on his scooter along with her daughter P.W. 22; that P.W. 1 and P.W. 22 were thereafter taken to a lodge owned by P.W. 3 Smt. Shabha located in Buldi area and on reaching that place the appellant is alleged to have held the hand of P.W. 1 and started taking her towards a room inside the Lodge; that the son of P.W. 3 started closing the door of the room from outside allegedly on the direction of the appellant and on seeing this P.W. 1 asked the boy not to close the door and at that time her daughter P.W. 22 Sabha Bano was also inside the room; that thereafter, P.W. 1 forcibly pulled her hand out of the appellant's hold and managed to become free from the clutches of the appellant and went out of the room along with her daughter; that P.W. 1 then started crying "Beijjattee" and on seeing the mob gathering on the road, the appellant is stated to have driven away on his scooter; that, thereafter, P.W. 1 and P.W. 22 went to their house in a cycle rickshaw; that on reaching home P.W. 1 narrated the incident to her husband who asked her to lodge a report at the Police Station and said that otherwise he would not keep her at his home; that P.W. 1 and her husband went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint at about 5 p.m. as per Exhibit 22 which was registered for offences under Ss. 341, 354, 366 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at about 8.05 p.m.; that the appellant is also stated to have reached the same police station by then where the complaint had been lodged in which he was working and on noticing that case had been registerd against him, he left his scooter in front of the Police Station and ran away. PSI P.W. 10 seized the scooter and drew a seizure memorandum and recovered a Spear Blade from the dickey of the said scooter; that the appellant is stated to have surrendered at the Police Station and a charge-sheet was filed against him. On committal to the Court of Session he was tried for offences under Ss. 341, 354, 366 and 506, Part II, I.P.C.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.