RAMKUMAR PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ramanujganj (Sarguja) in Sessions Trial No. 214/2007 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. Facts of the case in brief are that on 1.2.2007 FIR (Ex. P-5) was lodged by the prosecutrix - a pregnant lady aged about 19 years alleging that on 31.1.2007 marriage of her sister-in-law was being solemnized and all her family members were busy in attending the members of marriage party. It is alleged that on that day in the night hours when she was sleeping in her house all alone, accused/appellant also came and slept there. Allegedly, as the people used to frequent to her house, the door was left open. At about 12 in the night, accused/appellant got over her cot and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix tried to raise cries, the accused/appellant threatened to kill her. After her husband got back, she narrated the entire incident to him. It is alleged that Suraj (PW-10) had seen the accused/appellant while he was coming out of her house. Based on this report, offence under Section 376 IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. She was medically examined on 1.2.2007 by Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-8) who gave her report Ex. P-12 stating that at that time the prosecutrix was carrying pregnancy of 28-30 weeks. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police on 3.4.2007 for the said offence.

(2.) In support of its case, prosecution has examined 11 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.

(3.) After hearing the parties, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.