SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 159

ROHIT B.DEO
Dnyaneshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Amit Band, Advocate
For the Respondent: V.P. Maldhure, APP.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant-accused is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.10.2013 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case 136/2012, by and under which, the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.

2. Heard Shri Amit Band, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Maldhure, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The genesis of the prosecution lies in the oral report dated 17.07.2012 lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W.1) at Police Station Parwa, District Yavatmal. The gist of the report lodged by the prosecutrix, who was then aged 15 years, is that between 05:30 to 06:00 p.m. on the day of the incident she went to the grocery shop of one Rajesh Dabbawar to purchase cell for watch. The wife of the shop owner Smt. Kalpana informed the prosecutrix that watch cells were not available in the shop. The prosecutrix was returning to her residence uttering that the cells are not available and from which shop could she purchase the cell. The accused, who was si












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top