VIRENDRA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2007 passed by Sessions Judge Jashpur in Sessions Trial No. 49/2007 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 376 (1) and 506 (Part-II) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and one year respectively on each count.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that on 12.3.2007 at about 1.45 p.m. FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by the prosecutrix aged about 13 years at the relevant time alleging that on 10.3.2007 she was in her school and during lunch break when she along with her friend Sushila went out to answer the call of nature, accused/appellant came there, caught hold of her hand, forcibly took her to a nearby mango orchard, threatening her of life threw her on the ground and after pulling down her undergarments committed rape on her and that after the incident was over, he again threatened her to be killed in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. It is alleged that on account of being threatened by the accused/appellant, she did not disclose the incident to anyone immediately and informed her mother about the same on the next day of the incident. Based on this FIR, offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC were registered against the accused/appellant. She was medically examined on 12.3.2007 vide Ex. P-3 by Dr. (Smt.) Kanta Tirki (PW-4). After investigation, challan was filed by the police on 28.3.2007 for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the statement of the prosecutrix has been duly supported by medical report Ex. P-3 where the doctor examining her had noticed injuries on her private part and opined that she was subjected to sexual intercourse within 48 hours of her examination. He submits that the delay in lodging the FIR has duly been explained by the prosecution as the prosecutrix has categorically stated that on account of threat given by the accused/appellant she did not disclose the matter to anyone immediately and it is on the next day she informed her mother about the same and then the report was lodged. He submits that on account of trivial dispute between the family members of the prosecutrix and the accused/appellant, it cannot be imagined that a tender-aged girl would be used as a weapon in such a manner.