1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th November 2010 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.358 of 2008, convicting the appellant who was the sole accused in the said case, of an offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC, and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

2. The facts of the case, as can be seen from the Column No.16 of the printed prescribed proforma of the police report are as follows :

That the appellant, during the period of about 5-6 months prior to 18th January 2008, had, time to time in the house of the First Informant, committed rape on the minor daughter of the First Informant, aged 16 years, by sometimes giving a false promise of marriage or sometimes by beating, abusing and threatening her. That, by repeatedly committing forcible sexual intercourse with the daughter of the First Informant, the appellant made her pregnant, and the said daughter gave birth to a dead child. The appellant had thus, committed offences punishable under section 376 IPC, 323 IPC, 504 IPC and 506 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case which could be best gathered from the testimony of the First Informant Kantabai (PW 2), may be stated thus :

That Kantabai has four children and the victim “V” (name not disclosed to prevent disclosure of identity) is the oldest amongst them. The victim was studying in a school. She was in 8th standard. The appellant was known to the victim and to the family of Kantabai. Fasabai – sisterinlaw of Kantabai – from the physical appearance of the victim, suspected that she was indulging in sex with someone, and expressed this suspicion to Kantabai. Kantabai then asked the victim whether she had any relations with anyone when the victim told her the name of the appellant. The victim told Kantabai that she used to meet the appellant, and that the appellant used to come to her and that, they both were in physical relationship. Kantabai also learnt that the victim had become pregnant from the appellant. She and her husband Maruti (PW 3) then took the victim to Junnar Police Station, but instead of lodging a report with the police, entered into negotiations with the relatives of the appellant. A meeting took place in the village when the appellant and his family members agreed that the appellant would marry the victim. The date of marriage was also fixed as 11/2/2008. In the meantime, the victim delivered a female child, but the child was found to be dead. The father of the appellant thereafter refused to perform the marriage of the appellant with the victim. Kantabai then went to the police station and lodged a report against the appellant alleging commission of the offences punishable under section 376 IPC, 504 IPC, 506 IPC, 420 IPC and 323 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC. In the course of investigation, not only the appellant, but his family members were also arrested. They were, however, released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant who was prosecuted and convicted, as aforesaid.

4. The prosecution examined 9(nine) witnesses during the trial. The first witness is the victim herself and the second witness is the First Informant Kantabai. Maruti – husband of Kantabai and father of the victim is the third witness. The fourth witness Pandharinath Lande is the Police Patil of the village in which the victim and the appellant resided. The fifth witness Dr. Ganesh Ingawale is the Medical Officer attached to the Rural Hospital, Junnar, at the material time. He had examined the victim medically on 21st January 2008. He had also conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the female child born to the victim. The sixth witness Shivram Date was the Head Master of the New English School in which the victim was studying