MOHARDAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26 -2 -1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 110/1995 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for four months. Facts of the case in brief are that on 3 -1 -1995 at 11 p.m. FIR Ex. P -8 was lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W. -4) aged about 25 years at the relevant time alleging that on that day at about 9 -10 a.m. when she was collecting cow dung in the field, accused/appellant came from behind and after threatening, threw her on the field and after upturning her sari and petticoat committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that when she tried to raise her cries, the accused/appellant had gagged her mouth. As a result of being thrown on the ground, she is alleged to have sustained injury on her leg and that after commission of the offence also the accused/appellant threatened her of being killed if she disclosed\incident to anyone. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused/appellant offered Rs. 50/ - to her and after reaching the village, she disclosed the incident to Premlal Verma, Chhavi Verma, Kanahiya etc. and after arrival of her husband to him also and then the report was lodged. Based on this FIR, offences under Sections 376 and 506 -B IPC were registered against the accused/appellant. Prosecutrix was medically examined on 1 -2 -1995 by Dr. Jaya Phuljhale (P.W. -8) who gave her report Ex. P -5. After investigation, charge was filed by the police on 6 -9 -1995 for the offences as mentioned in the FIR and the Court below also framed the charge under those 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.

(3.) COUNSEL for the accused/appellant submits that identity of the accused/appellant itself is doubtful and therefore question of lodging the named FIR against him does not arise. He submits that statement of the prosecutrix is highly unreliable and the accused/appellant has been implicated just because he had lodged a report against the prosecutrix for committing theft of gram (chana). He submits that even the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution as no external or internal injury was found on her person. He further submits that most of the witnesses are relatives of the prosecutrix and therefore on the basis of their, evidence the accused/appellant cannot be convicted.