IMPORTANT POINT
[The judgment establishes that corroborative evidence, including medical reports and witness testimonies, is crucial in sexual assault cases, particularly when the victim is a minor. The court emphasized that the absence of a defense of consent from the accused is significant in determining guilt under Sec. 376 of the IPC.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this revision application, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 30/1/2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant/accused against his conviction and sentence awarded by learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Ss. 341, 363, 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). Learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, on conviction, had sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 341 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Sec. 366 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of the IPC. He was further sentenced on all the counts to pay the fine.

2. The facts are as follows: The prosecutrix, on the date of the incident, was around 14 years of age. She was residing with her mother at Ashok Nagar, Yavatmal. On 23/2/2012, she lodged a report of the incident of sexual assault on her. On the basis of the said report, a crime bearing No.44/2012 was registered against the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the parents of the prosecutrix are doing labour work. On the date of the incident, she was studying in 9th standard at Katebai Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tahsil Chowk, Yavatmal. Her school hours were between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the school hours, she used to attend the tuition class for English subject between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. run by Mr. Mukhtiyar at Athawadi Bajar, Chapanwadi. She started to attend the tuition class 15 days prior to the incident.

3. It is stated that on 23/2/2012, after attending the school, she came back to her house. She went to attend the tuition class. It is stated that at about 7:00 p.m., when she was returning from the tuition class on bicycle, one boy came from behind on a motor-cycle. He went ahead and obstructed her bicycle. The prosecutrix saw him. He was the accused Wasim Solanki. She had seen the accused earlier at the residence of her friend Guddi Meshram. It is stated that the accused caught hold her hand and pointed knife at her neck. She got frightened. She tried to raise shout, but the accused threatened to kill her. The accused at the point of knife made her to sit on his motorcycle. The accused took her behind Ram Temple in an open space. She tried to run away from the said place. The accused chased her. The accused removed her cloths. The accused knocked her down. When she tried to raise shout, the accused again threatened to kill her. The accused committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix somehow managed to free herself from the clutches of the accused and ran away towards hutment area. She went to the hut of a lady who is examined as PW-7. She narrated the incident to the old lady. The old lady PW-7 gave shelter to her in the night. On the next day, the said old lady brought the prosecutrix to her house at about 10:00 a.m. She narrated the incident to her mother. They went to Wadgaon Road Police Station and lodged the report. On the basis of the report of mother of the prosecutrix, PW-6 A.P.I. Rathod registered the crime against the accused.

4. The prosecutrix was sent to the hospital for medical examination. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused. The investigation was then entrusted to PW-11 Lata Phad. PW-11, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to bring home the guilt against the accused. Learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence, held the accused guilty of the charge and sentenced him as above. The appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and sentence was di