NANKIDAU ALIAS NANDIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21st August, 1996 passed in special Criminal Case No. 258/96 by the Additional judge to the Court of Session Judge, Bilaspur and President Officer, Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with the direction to run the sentences concurrently :-

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Prosecutrix (PW-1) was a married lady belonging to Gond Tribe. She was aged about 35 years. She was residing with her husband-Ratiram and other family members, including her brother-in-law, Laxman (PW-2). Appellant-Heeramati was her neighbour. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.1995 at about 8.00 p.m., appellant-Heeramati came to the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and took her to her house on the pretext that they will go to see Nacha (a local dance). When the prosecutrix (PW-1) came to the house of appellant-Heeramati, she saw that appellant-Nankidau was also present there. heeramati left them alone in her house and closed the doors of the house from outside. The allegations are that thereafter appellant-nankidau committed forcible sexual intercourse against the prosecutrix (PW-1). After the intercourse, the prosecutrix called Heeramati, who opened the door, and then she went to her house. The First Information Report (F.I.R.-Ex.-P/1) was lodged on 2.10.1995 at about 17 hours. The prosecutrix (PW-1) was sent for her medical examination. She was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Pandey (PW-10) who found no external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and gave no definite opinion about the rape. The MLC report of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is Ex.-P/14. Appellant-Nandidau was taken into custody and his underwear was seized. Petticoat of the prosecutrix (PW-1) was also seized. Two slides prepared from the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and the above articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Sagar, from where, a report was received. According to the F.S.L. report, spermatozoa were not found on the above articles including the slides. On trial, the learned Special Judge relied on the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her brother-in-law (jeth), Laxman (PW-2), and held that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by appellant-nankidau for which appellant-Heeramati facilitated him by taking the prosecutrix to her house. The appellants were thus convicted and sentenced in the above manner.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. J.A. Lohani, leaned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Court.