SANT ALIAS SANTRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3 -7 -1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 07/1998 convicting the accused/appellant under sections 376 and 450, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven years and one year respectively on each count. Facts of the case in brief are that on 6 -10 -1997 written report Ex. P -12 -A was lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W. -10) - a married lady aged about 22 years alleging that on 4 -10 -1997 when she was cleaning her house and her husband had gone to another village in connection with livelihood, the accused/appellant had an entry thereto from the backyard, caught hold of her, threw her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that in spite of her screams, nobody came to her rescue as the people of neighbourhood had gone to their workplace. It is further alleged that on account of illness of her husband the report could not be lodged on the same day. Based on this written report, F.I.R. Ex. P -13 was registered against the accused/appellant under sections 376 and 450, Indian Penal Code. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 6 -10 -1997 itself by Dr. Nina Thakkar (P.W. -7) who gave her report Ex. P -11. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed by the police on 25 -10 -1999 under the same sections.

(2.) IN support of its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, one Brijlal (D.W. -1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.

(3.) COUNSEL for the accused/appellant submits that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecution and the accused/appellant has been implicated in a false case due to some dispute over drainage. He submits that as per the F.I.R., immediately after the incident it was narrated by the prosecutrix to Siddik (P.W. -12) but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, there are material contradictions in the statement of Rohit Vishwakarma (P.W. -5) and Chitrarekha (P.W. -10) and they have given a different story. He further submits that the delay in lodging the report has not been properly explained by the prosecution. According to the counsel for the accused/appellant, medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case of the prosecution.