IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1326 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1326 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1326 OF 2007 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1269 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1269 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1269 OF 2007 Ramesh @ Rambhau Bhimaji Gaikwad.... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Shri S.K.Shinde i/b Sagar Kasar for the applicant. Shri Y.S.Shinde APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 21ST JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 21ST JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 21ST JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Heard. The applicant/accused has been convicted under section 376 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months. He is also convicted under section 452 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year. A further conviction is also recorded against him under section 342 of IPC and is sentened to suffer R.I. for six monhs. The accused is also convicted under section 506 of IPC and is sentenced to sufer imprisonment for one year. All the sentences are to run concurretnly. 2. The prosecution case is that the accused entered the house of the prosecutrix during day time in between 3.30 to 5.00 p.m. He forcibly, allegedly dragged the prosecutrix inside and by putting her under threat of death, committed the rape. The house of the prosecutrix wherein the offences has been allegedly comitted is located in thick of the houses nearby. The residential house of the accused is at a distance of about 200 ft. away of the prosecutrix. The accused is a married man, having children. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix who is a married woman was declared hostile and she denied the very occurence of the incident. Her evidence in the cross examination by State is the only uncorroborated evidence on record which has been relied upon for recording conviction by the Addl. Sessions Judge. As per the case of the prosecution, after the accused committed rape, had left the scene of offence. The mother -in-law of the prosecutrix and one Rajure P.w.6 who is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix had come to the house of the porosecutrix and the first disclossure by the prosecutrix of the alleged act by the accused is to her mother-in-law and said Rajure. The said two persons have turned hostile and they denied that the prosecutrix revealed the alleged occurence of the incident to the said persons. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the applicant has canvassed that the case of the prosecutrix is wholly immprobable, besides that uncorroborated evidence of the present prosecutrix which does not inspire any confidence, cannot be relied upon to record a conviction. The learned A.P.P. supports the findings recorded by the court below. The accused is in jail since last about one and a half years. perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. In my opinion it is a fit case for grant of bail. In the result, I direct that the applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. Application is disposed of. ......