RAMADHIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th April, 1991 passed in S.T. No.238/1988, whereby the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, has convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.7.1988, the prosecutrix had gone to field outside the village to attend the call of nature along with her friends Malti Kewat and Janki Bai and while returning was intercepted by the appellant and his associate Seuk Kewat. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant caught hold of the hands of the prosecutrix, dragged her, removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her. After some time Risau, brother of Malti, Shobha, Dhanraj and Dhansingh arrived at the spot, upon which, the appellant ran away. Thereafter, the prosecutrix came back to village along with Malta, Risau and narrated the incident to village residents namely Siyaram and Budhram and village Panchayat was convened, wherein elders advised to lodge report to the police station. Thereafter the prosecutrix, Malti and her brother went to police station and lodged the report of the incident.

(3.) First information report of Ex.P-1 was lodged in the Police Station-Arjuni on 17.7.1988 at 14:05 hrs. by the prosecutrix reporting alleged commission of offence. Thereafter on that very day, petticoat and saree of the prosecutrix alleged to contain stains were seized by the police from the possession of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-2. Police further seized underwear from the appellant on 18.7.1988 vide Ex.P-3 which alleged to contain seminal stains. Vide Ex.P-4A, police seized a sealed slide containing vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix on 17.7.1988. Memorandum of Ex.P-5 dated 17.7.1988 was sent to the S.D.O., Dhamtari for grant of permission for examination of private parts of the prosecutrix and the permission was obtained. After obtaining the consent of Bhagwan, father of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-6, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to Dr. S. Singhal (P. W.2) under memo of Ex.P-7 along with Police Constable-Ramdulal of Police Station -Arjuni. After examination, doctor gave her report vide Ex.P-3. In her report, doctor stated her age appearing to be above 17 years; secondary sex character were found well developed; pubic hair were also present. Doctor further stated no marks of external injury on her chest or back. The report further stated that vagina admitted one finger with resistance and hymen was found to be intact; no marks of external injury over private parts were found nor stains of blood or seminal were seen. It was also stated that there was no matting of hair. In the opinion, regarding age, doctor stated prosecutrix to be 17 or 18 years of age and for definite opinion advised that it be referred to Radiologist. Regarding sexual intercourse, it was stated that she was not used to sexual intercourse. Vaginal slides were prepared, packed and sealed. Undergarments were also examined, packed & sealed and were handed over for chemical examination.