The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence from vulnerable witnesses requires corroboration to ensure reliability.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 22.4.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.731/2019.

2. By the said judgment impugned, the accused is convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(j) and (l) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He is further directed to deposit compensation Rs.2.00 lacs under 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for survivor (PW1), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months.

3. Facts of the prosecution case necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

The crime is registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the sister of the victim alleging that she is residing along with her parents and elder sister (the victim) aged about 42 years. The victim is suffering from mental disorder and, therefore, she is unmarried. In the year 2017, the family members of the victim noticed her enlarged belly and, therefore, they called one knowledgeable lady from the village who disclosed that the victim is pregnant. Therefore, the informant took the victim at the Primary Health Center, Khapa where the Medical OfÏcer disclosed that she is pregnant of seven and half months. On enquiring with the victim, it was disclosed that the accused who is resident of the same village called her in the house and subjected her for forceful sexual assault on multiple occasions. Therefore, the informant has lodged the report. After lodging of the report, medical examination of the victim was carried out from which it also revealed that she is pregnant of seven and half months. She delivered a child subsequent to the lodging of the report.

4. During investigation, the Investigating OfÏcer has drawn spot panchanama, recorded statement of the victim, collected the sample of the victim and the accused and the child delivered by the victim and forwarded for the DNA Examination. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet is filed against the accused.

5. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge vide Exh.8. The contents of the charge are denied by the accused and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses namely PW1 victim vide Exh.14, PW2 sister of the victim vide Exh.15, PW3 Rajeshwar Ramlingam Naidu pancha on seizure, pancha on spot, pancha on seizure of samples of the accused, pancha on seizure of the samples of the victim vide Exh.22, PW4 Dr.Sagar Chiddarwar vide Exh.29, PW5 Ulhas Bhusari Investigating OfÏcer vide Exh.33, PW6 Gopichand Nerkar Exh.41 Investigating OfÏcer, PW7 Dr.Bhakti Deshpande Exh.51, and PW8 Rupali Bhoyar Special Teacher Exh.54.

6. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed reliance on report Exh.16, FIR Exh.17, statement of the informant under Section 164 Exh.18, seizure memo as to the samples of the accused for DNA purpose Exh.23, samples of victim for DNA purpose Exh.24, spot panchanama Exh.27, medical certificate Exh.28, certificate as to the mental health Exh.30, DNA Report Exh.31, CA Report Exh.32, letter to the Medical OfÏcer Exhs.34 and 36, letter to Headmaster Exh.35, letters to CA Exhs.38, 39, 42 and 44, arrest panchanama Exh.49, MLC report Exh.52, and report of the special teacher Exh.55.

7. All incriminating evidence is put to the accused by recording his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which the accused has denied the allegations and defence of the accused is of total denial. After appreciation of the evidence adduced, learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused guilty and convicted him as the aforesaid.

8. Heard learned counsel Shri G.D. Dani for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.S.S.Dhote for the State.

9. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is charged for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(j) and (l) of the Indian Penal Code. The burden is on