PARDESHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.1999 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in ST. No. 144/98 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 07 years.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 1.6.1998 the prosecutrix, a married lady aged about 22 years, lodged FIR (Ex.P-12) stating that her marriage was solemnized with Panuram (PW-3) about four years back. Her husband is, mentally weak. On 31.5.1998 her husband was sleeping inside the house, whereas she was sleeping in the courtyard in the cot along with Laxmibai, daughter of her sister-in-law. Light of the courtyard was on. She has further stated that at about 11 p.m. in the night, her brother-in-law came near her cot, pressed her mouth with his hands and committed rape upon her. She has further stated that as her mouth was gagged by accused/appellant, she could not raise cries. However, she has narrated the entire incident to her husband, Boondkunwar (PW-5) and Ramkunwar (PW-6). She has further stated that earlier on 17.5.1998 also when her husband had gone out, the accused/appellant had committed rape upon her but for fear of being defamed, she did not lodge report. She has further stated that after committing offence, the accused/appellant had promised to perform chudi marriage with her. She has further stated that she had also beaten accused/appellant by club as a result of which he sustained injuries on his forehead. On arrival of her father Gopinath (PW-1), she narrated the entire incident to him and then the report was lodged. On the basis of this report, the offence under Section 376 (1) of the IPC was registered against accused/appellant. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Madhu Dubey (PW-8) vide Ex.P-8. The doctor has not noticed any injury on the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.

(3.) Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (supra), has been reiterated in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: