MUNNILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-1-1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 387/1992 convicting the accused/Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 456 and 376(2)(g) IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months Under Section 456 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year Under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27-7-1992 FIR Ex. P-10 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-3) aged about 18 years alleging that on 26-7-1992 at about 10 p.m. when her husband had gone to his workplace, she was in her house along with her father-in-law Munnu Lal (PW-5) and brother-in-law Awadhesh (PW-6), accused/Appellant No. 1 called her father-in-law, took him outside the house and along with other persons he made him drink liquor. When she was preparing meals and her brother-in-law Awdhesh (PW-6) was sleeping in the house, accused /Appellant No. 1 came there and demanded Rs. 10/- from her. When she refused to give him the money, he put off the earthen lamp, removed her sari, bolted the door from inside, threw her on the ground and after upturning her petticoat committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to raise her cries, the accused/Appellant No. 1 gagged her mouth and also pressed her breasts, bit her cheeks with teeth and then he left the place. Thereafter, accused/ Appellant No. 2 also came there, threw her on the ground, pressed her breasts and after upturning her petticoat committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After commission of the offence when the Appellant No. 2 had left the place, accused /Appellant No. 1 again committed sexual intercourse with her and when after commission of the offence he also left the place, accused/Appellant No. 2 again came and committed the sexual intercourse with her. On cries being raised by her, he used to shut her mouth with his hands. Meanwhile, her brother-in-law Awdhesh (PW-6) woke up and saw the incident. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her father-in-law and other persons and then the report was lodged. Subsequently, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination vide Ex. P-13. Clothes of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-12 but the report has not been received by the prosecution.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/ Appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/ Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.