K.U.CHANDIWAL

1. Heard extensively.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The revision applicant was convicted in RCC No.70/1997, for offense under Section 377 of I.P.C., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/; in default, simple imprisonment for one month; for offense under Section 323 of I.P.C., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/; in default, simple imprisonment for one week; for offense under Section 506 of I.P.C., to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/; in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentence was directed to run concurrently.

4. In Criminal Appeal No.6/2006, the revision applicant failed and hence the present Criminal Revision questioning the conviction. Fine amount has been deposited and an amount of Rs.3,000/was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

5. The victim, a boy of 10 / 11 years, on 1.4.1997, along with his friends, entered agricultural field of revision applicant to pluck unripe mangoes. On noticing the victim climbing on the tree, the revision applicant got estranged by such act of the victim and his friends. Sensing presence of the applicant, two boys; Bhausaheb and Vijay, sneaked away from the field, however, since the victim was at the branch of tree, could not succeed in escaping. The applicant / accused nabbed him. He started beating the victim. On the way, while taking the victim to nearby hut, he mercilessly beat him with a stick. He did not bother to the yelling of the victim; even advice from his watchman, to refrain. The victim was taken to a secluded shade / room where the applicant / accused indulged into carnal intercourse against order of nature with the victim boy, then 10 years old.

6. The accused / applicant took bath. He had warned the victim not to disclose the events to the villagers or anybody else. Consequently, the victim remained aloof for few days, however, since there were severe pains at his back, he on inquiry, informed his grand mother the events of abuse, injuries. The accused was confronted. The accused, allegedly, implored, for mercy, for the events, however, FIR vide Crime No.6/1997, was lodged on 3rd April, 1997, for offense under Sections 377, 323, 506 of I.P.C. Charge was explained to the accused in vernacular to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused / applicant asserted to the false implication.

7. Ten witnesses were examined wherein PW No.2 is the victim of the offense. PW No.5 is Dr.Purushottam, Medical Officer, who has examined the victim and so also accused; the report in respect of accused is at Exh.32 and at Exh.33, to the extent of the victim. PW No.6, the watchman cemented the events. PW No.7 was witness for spot panchnama. PW No.8 witnessed seizure of blue coloured under pant belonging to the accused. Exh.39 is seizure panchnama of the nicker belonging to the victim boy. PW No.9 is the Chemical Analyser who has established report of nicker and undergarment at Exhs. 55, 56 and 57. The report of Chemical Analyzer in respect of semen, blood and pubic hairs of the accused; it illustrates that the blood group of the accused and that of the victim is different. The Chemical analysis has clearly shown that semen stains belonging to the accused were on the nicker and equally on the underpant of the accused and the victim boy.

8. Mr.Patil, learned Counsel for applicant has criticized about report of the Chemical Analyzer canvassing that the victim had only two nickers which were regularly washed. Hence, there could not be an evidence about presence of semen stains on the undergarments. According to him, an incident of beating by the accused has been magnified to rope him for the event of unnatural act. He has stressed to the evidence of Medical Officer PW No.5 to indicate that on 4.4.1997, there were no semen stain