GUDDU ALIAS SHIVRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.6.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 08/1997 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 450 and 376(2) (g) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 500 u/s 450 and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,500 u/s 376(2) (g) IPC.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that on 5.11.1996 FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) - a married lady aged about 18 years alleging that on 4.11.1996 at 8 p.m. she was all alone in her house as her husband Malik Ram (PW-2) had gone for fishing, co-accused Dholalal and the present appellant came there and demanded water from her. When she offered water to the co-accused, he put off the earthen lamp burning in her house, threw her on the floor and when she tried to raise her cries, he had gagged her mouth. Present appellant is alleged to have held her legs and co-accused after removing her as well as his own clothes committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and after commission of the offence both of them left the spot. Thereafter, the incident was narrated to her husband and to the in-laws in the next morning and then FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged. Based on this FIR, offences under Sections 450 and 376/34 IPC were registered against the accused/appellant as also the co-accused Dholalal but as the co-accused was minor he was prosecuted before the Juvenile Court whereas against the present appellant the challan was filed by the police on 30.11.1996 under Sections 450 and 376 (2) (g) IPC and subsequently the court below also framed the charge against him under the same sections.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecutrix as according to her husband Malik Ram (PW-2) the incident was not informed to him on the same day but on the next day and all this shows that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that names of the accused persons were not known to the prosecutrix and the same were disclosed to her by one Mohar Lal who has not been examined by the prosecution. According to him, medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the case of the prosecution as the medical report says that there was no external or internal injury on the person of the prosecutrix. He further submits that the accused/appellant has not committed rape on the prosecutrix and therefore he cannot be convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC.