GANESH SINGH MANDVI Vs. SHIVRATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.5.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 264/1988 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 342 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years Under Section 376(2)(g) and rigorous imprisonment for six months Under Section 342 IPC. During the pendency of appeal accused/appellant No. 2 (Angadsingh) has expired and therefore this appeal relates to appellants Ganesh Singh Mandvi and R.L. Sharma, only.

(2.) AS per the case of the complainant/respondent No. 1 she had lodged a complaint on 13.1.1987 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora alleging that on 22.4.1986 she was forcibly taken by the accused/appellant No. 1 Ganesh Singh Mandvi to his house on the pretext that her husband was waiting for her. From there, she was taken to the nearby forest where all the three accused persons had ravished her. Accused/appellant No. 1 Ganesh Singh Mandvi had also snatched her two year child and threatened to kill him if she raised any alarm. It is alleged that she was confined to the house of accused/appellant No. 1 Ganesh Singh Mandvi for three days and was repeatedly subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by all of them. On 10.6.1986 she sat on hunger strike in front of the office of Superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project and thereafter on 12.6.1986 Police of police station Katghora registered the case against the accused/appellants. However, final report was submitted by the police as a result of which she was left with no other option but to file the complaint case against the accused/appellants.

(3.) ON the other hand counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the impugned judgment and submits that the same being strictly in accordance with the evidence available on record is not prone to any disturbance in appeal. He submits that present is a case where a poor lady has been sexually exploited by the three accused persons and despite her best efforts, the police had refused to register and investigate the matter compelling the prosecutrix to file the complaint case against the accused/appellants. He also submits that the defence has not been able to bring forth any material to show the false implication of the accused/appellants in this case.