Ranjeet Pritam Meshram (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5295 Bom

                                                   1                                                  apeal144.16.J

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2016

       Ranjeet Pritam Meshram.
       Aged about 22 years, Occup-Labourer.
       R/o-Pahalepar, Tah - Saoner.
       District - Nagpur (in jail).                                            ...APPELLANT.

                        - V E R S U S -

       The State of Maharashtra,
       Through PSO, P. S. Saoner.
       District - Nagpur.                                                      ...RESPONDENT.

       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Shri G. B. Hemke, Advocate for the Appellant. 
       Shri M. J. Khan, A. P .P. for the Respondent/State.
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                         CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 31 st

JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

Heard Shri G. B. Hemke, Advocate for the appellant and Shri

M. J. Khan, learned A. P. P. for the State.

01] The appellant/accused has challenged the judgment passed

by the Special Court convicting him for offence under Section 5(m)

punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 read with Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to

pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.

                                          2                                                  apeal144.16.J

   02]            The case of the prosecution is :

On 29th September, 2013 at about 10.30 a. m., the victim

(aged about 10 years) had gone to the house of the accused to watch

Television. At that time, no one except the accused was present in his

house. After sometime the accused shut the door and committed crime.

The victim shouted and hearing the shouts, the victim's mother rushed to

the house of accused and saw the accused and victim in naked condition.

Shalikram Rajaram Bilwar (neighbour) and Manikrao Durugwar (paternal

grand father of the victim) and Narayan Durugwar came there and all of

them went to the police station, however, report was not accepted on that

day and therefore, they went to the police station on the next day at

about 9.30 a. m. and lodged the report. The First Information Report was

registered, statement of the victim was recorded, investigation was

undertaken, the accused was arrested and after completing the

formalities, charge-sheet was filed. The Special Court framed the charges,

read over and explained the charges to the accused, the accused did not

accept the guilt and claimed to be tried and therefore, the trial was

conducted. The Special Court recorded that the prosecution has proved

that the accused has committed the crime and convicted the accused and

sentenced him as per the order.

03] The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the

learned Special Judge has not given due weightage to the fact that the

report is lodged on the second day of the alleged incident and the

3 apeal144.16.J

prosecution has not been able to justify the delay. The submission is

misdirected. In the cross-examination, Vijay Maroti Pote - PSI (PW-6)

has admitted that mother of the victim had come to the police station

alongwith the victim on 29th September, 2013, however, as the Police

Sub-Inspector (PW-6) found that offence under Section 377 of the Indian

penal Code was not made out, the Crime/FIR was not registered and then

a complaint was made to the Superior Officer and on his say, Crime/FIR

was registered on the next day.

04] The advocate for the appellant has submitted that the

prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence and evidence is

not brought on record to show that carnal intercourse took place, and

penetration has not been proved.

Again the argument is misdirected. The victim is examined.

In the cross-examination of the victim, the defence has not been able to

bring on record anything to doubt the case of prosecution/victim. The

case of prosecution is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Dinesh Suresh

Akarte (PW-4). In the cross-examination of Dr. Dinesh Suresh Akarte

(PW-4) it has come on record that injuries to the victim were fresh having

been caused within 24 hours to 48 hours prior to examination of the

victim. The report of medical examination (Exh.35) of the victim

supports the claim of prosecution/victim. It is not the claim of the

appellant that he is falsely implicated as there had been come enmity

between the appellant and the family of victim.

                                          4                                                  apeal144.16.J

   05]            After examining the record and going through the impugned

judgment, I find that the learned Special Judge has exhaustively dealt

with the evidence on record properly. The learned advocate for the

appellant has not been able to point out any perversity in the conclusions

of the learned Special Judge. I see no reason to interfere with the

impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.

The muddemal be dealt with according to law, after the

period of appeal is over.

JUDGE PBP