SURYA @ SURESH MAHADEV SURYAVANSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree in Sessions Case No.690 of 2009, convicting the appellant, who was the accused in the said case, of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. The appellant was also charged of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 511 of the IPC for the acts allegedly committed by him, but the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him of the said charge.

(2.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the light of the evidence adduced during the trial, he would not canvass that the incident as alleged by the victim (name not mentioned to prevent disclosure of identity), who was, at the material time, of about 8 years, did not take place at all. He, however, submitted that, the evidence adduced during the trial did not show a completed offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and that, the appellant could be held guilty only of attempt to commit rape punishable under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 511 of the IPC.

(3.) In view of the concession made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not necessary to discuss the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have, however, glanced through the evidence. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on an admission given by the victim in her cross-examination.