DINESH JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the appeal are as under:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised three arguments during the course of hearing. He has first pointed out that the two primary witnesses, both relatives of the prosecutrix, including Babulal her son had been declared hostile and had not supported the prosecutrix's case and as the story preferred by her was far fetched, it could not be believed. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence which could be a corroborating factor, too was uncertain, as Dr. Kalpana Ravi had stated that the factum of rape could not be ascertained. The learned Counsel has finally emphasised that the defence version that the appellant had reached the house of the prosecutrix to recover his cow and in a quarrel between them that followed/ both had suffered injuries and that he had thereafter been falsely implicated in a case of rape. To highlight this argument, the learned Counsel has referred us to the medical evidence of Dr. S.B. Khare (PW-6).

(3.) Mr. CD. Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondent State has however submitted that the prosecutrix case was liable to be believed and has relied upon the judgment of this Court in [Motilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 11 SCC 20. It has also been submitted that the evidence clearly showed that the appellant had been arrested from the house of the prosecutrix which proved the factum of rape.