JOHAT RAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.8.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 198/ 1989 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigor-ous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.2.1989 FIR (Ex. P-l) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) aged about 15-16 years alleging that 15 days prior thereto .she was living alone in her temporarily erected hut in the University Campus, and when on the date of incident she was shifting the construction material in University build-ing, the accused/appellant caught hold of her and committed sexual intercourse with her. On an alarm being raised by her, she was threatened by him and for this reason she did not disclose the incident to anyone. Thereafter on 14.2.1989, she was allured away by the accused/appellant and accused Kamlu Ram and taken to the house of sis-ter-in-law of the accused/appellant at Santoshi Nagar where the accused/appel-lant committed sexual intercourse with her thrice. Thereafter, both the accused persons took her to Abhanpur in a truck and then to village Arand on bicycle where she was kept for three days and was subjected to sexual intercourse by both of them. According to the prosecutrix, from village Arand, she was taken to the house of the sister of accused Kamlu Ram at village Chhanta where both of them committed sexual intercourse with her twice during her stay there for three days. Then she was taken to the house of brother of the accused/appellant at Rajim where also she was subjected to sexual in-tercourse during her stay there for 3-4 days.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 12 wit-nesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his inno-cence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Chandulal (DW-1) has also been examined by thedefence in support of its case. Both the accused persons were pros-ecuted for the offences" punishable under Sections 363, 36/34 and 506-11 IPC.