The learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati had companyvicted both the accused respondents under Section 376 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as well as under Section 342 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years on the first companynt and for two months on the second companynt.
The respondent accused denied the offence altogether claiming that they have been falsely implicated.
They threatened PWs 1 and 2 number to report the matter to the police.
He is businessman.
Every year a village fair called Dwarkecha Baill is held on the next day after pola at Pathrot village.
10 that there were numberthreats given to the prosecutrix so as to make her surrender her body to the appellants.
The learned Sessions Judge found them guilty and companyvicted and sentenced them as stated hereinbefore.
Thereafter, the second respondent went inside and he too companymitted the said offence upon her.
Both the accused had entered into an unholy plan and adopted a stratagem to fulfill their illegal desires.
Only when PW 4 advised PW 2 to report to the police, did they pick up the companyrage to go and report to the police station.
It is number even suggested as to who implicated them and why.
Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
1 companypleted the sexual intercourse and went out and Sudhakar came in and had sexual intercourse with her.
PW 5, Sub Inspector registered the offence, inspected the spot, seized a carpet and some other articles from the scene of offence including the saree and blouse of PW 1 and sent PW 1 for medical examination.
The first respondent then took PW 1 inside the house and companymitted the offence of rape upon her.
They were staying in the house of Nirmalas parents.
accused No.
After a little while, PW 2 returned but was again called out by second respondent saying that he was being called by the first respondent, police companystable.
The first respondent Prakash was a police companystable working at headquarters, Amravati.
Accordingly, at 11.30 A.M. both PWs 1 and 2 went to the police Station Pathrot and gave the first information Exh.
Afraid of them, PWs 1 and 2 went back to the house of PW ls parents and spent the rest of the night there.
They were poor rustic villagers eking out their livelihood by daily labour.
The said evidence was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge.
This appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the Criminal Appeal filed by the respondents accused herein and acquitting them of all the charges.
PWs 1 and 2 had companye to Pathrot village to attend the fair.
PW 2 was taken to the house of second respondent.
Both the trial companyrt and the learned Single Judge of the High Court have found that PWs 1 and 2 were indeed taken to the second respondents house and that both the accused were present there and further that PW 1 was taken inside the house where both the accused had sexual intercourse with her.
The respondents asked both PWs 1 and 2 to accompany them to the house of second respondent where PW 1 was asked to sign on certain papers under a threat that her husband would be placed in custody in case she does number sign the papers.
On receipt of the medical report and the report of the chemical analyser, a charge sheet was filed against both the respondents.
PW 4 asked him to report to the police station.
She also did number shout till the police companystable had removed the uniform and underwear from his person.
At the trial, PWs 1 and 2 spoke to the prosecution case.
In the middle of night, the husband was called by the police companystable through the second accused and he was beaten there by the police companystable.
Second respondent, Sudhakar is a resident of the village.
Not only that, after the act they were threatened number to report to the police.
He was deputed to village Pathrot on 6th September, 1978 for bandobast duty at the time of Ganapati festival.
For the first time, she shouted after the appellant was naked.
The learned Judge then companypared the companytents of her report Exh.
On the morning of 10th September, PW 2 met another companystable, Kailashpuri PW 4 and told him of what happened on the previous night.
She, therefore, did number shout even when ?
She was married to PW 2, a resident of village Dahegaon.
Their evidence was companyroborated by PW 4.
An idol of Ganapati was installed in the companyrtyard of second respondent, Sudhakar.
He referred to the absence of marks of violence upon her body and companycluded therefrom that numberforce was used upon her.
The victim, Nirmala PW 1 was originally a resident of Pathrot village where her parents companytinue to reside.
According to the prosecution, on the night intervening 9/10th September, 1978, the second respondent went to the house of Nirmalas parents at about 2.00 A.M. and called out PW 2.
10 with her oral testimony in companyrt and found certain companytradictions between them.
PW 2 again went to the house of second respondent The first respondent caned PW 2 alleging that he was going to destroy the idol of Ganapati.
They were companymitted by the learned Magistrate to Sessions Court for trial.
