The court acquitted the Appellants due to material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix, unsupported by medical evidence, and improper appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Court resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri Band, learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal no.536 of 2013, Shri R. M. Daga, learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal no.435 of 2013 and Shri Dhumale, learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.470 of 2013.

2. The Appeals challenge the judgment dtd. 23/7/2013 rendered by the District Judge-II and Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, whereby the Appellants, who are the original Accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 (Five Hundred Only) each, and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month and also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 (Five Hundred Only) each, and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment of one month and further convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 366 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 (Five Hundred Only) each, and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month.

3. The main argument has been advanced by Shri Amit Band, learned Counsel for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.536 of 2013.

4. It is contended by Shri Band, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the impugned judgment, convicts the Appellants merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises, by ignoring material admissions on record and so also the medical evidence. By taking me through the evidence of PW-5 the prosecutrix, (Page 89) he submits, that it is the only evidence based upon which, the learned Trial Court has decided the matter in ignorance of the medical evidence on record. He further points out, that even PW-3 Tulshiram Ramji Bhagat the father of the proseucutrix, had turned hostile and the basic story spun by the prosecutrix has lost credibility. It is further submitted, that since PW-7 Rameshwar Maroti Bakal, who is claimed to have reached the prosecutrix to her residence on the next day, had also turned hostile, it was necessary to have examined the other person, who was claimed to be with them, namely, Ramkrushna Lokhande, however, he has also not been examined. Various other material witnesses have not been examined for the reason, that they would have indicated that no such incident had taken place. Shri S. M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits, that the material on record justifies the conviction.

5. The incident as spelt out from the evidence of PW-5 the prosecutrix is as under : She alleges that on 4/11/2007 at about 5.00 p.m. when she had gone to answer nature's call on the road adjacent to the field of one Subhash Lokhande, the Accused no.1 Sukhdeo Shrawan Acharkate came near her and gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her. Then Accused no.2 Haridas Rama Manwar and Accused no.3 Pintu are also alleged to have come near her and threatened to kill her. All the Accused persons thereafter had lifted her and carried her in the agricultural field belonging to Subhash Lokhande, which was adjacent to the road, in which, a crop of Tur was standing. It is further alleged, that the Accused no.1 Sukhdeo and Accused no.2 Haridas thereafter cleaned the place, removed the clothes of the prosecutrix, who, at that time, was wearing Salwar Kamij. Accused no.1 Sukhdeo had pressed her breasts. Accused no.2 Haridas also pressed her breasts. Accused no.3 Pintu @ Rameshwar also pressed her breasts. The Accused no.1 Sukhdeo committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.

Thereafter, Accused no.2 Haridas also committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, Accused no.3 Pintu also committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, Accused no.2 Haridas went to villag