DHARM SAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal Is directed against the judgment dated 19/10/2001 delivered by Shri T. R. Burman, 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja in Sessions Case No. 189/2001 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1.0 years and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months each.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 16/5/2000 at about 10.00 p.m. the prosecutrix aged about 17 years, was retupiing from village Aara to her home in Hardijhiria. She was accompanied by Manju and Lalsai. On way near Ginamoda the appellants started teasing her. The appellant- Dharam Sai pulled the hand of the prosecutrix. When Manju and Lalsai intervened they were threatened by the appellants. Both Manju and Lalsai went away. The appellants dragged the prosecutrix to a nearby field situated at a distance of about 50 meters. Dharam Sai felled the prosecutrix on the ground and after undressing mounted on the prosecutrix and committed rape on her while the appellant Alamsai stood nearby. When Alamsai was about to commit rape on the proseciitrix she said that she was feeling thirsty, and therefore, she should first be given some water. Both the appellants took the prosecutrix to the house of Simon Uraon situated at a distance of one and half kilometers from the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix entered the house of Simon Uraon and did not come out. The appellants entered the house of Simon Uraon and attempted to drag the prosecutrix out. However, Simon Uraon and his wife Bodidevi prevented the appellants from doing so. Thereafter, the appellants went away. The prosecutrix i remained in the house of Simon Uraon. At 3.00 a.m. her father Rijhanram P.W. 1 while returning from village Aara saw the prosequtrix in the house of Simon Uraon. The prosecutrix did not narrate the incident to Rijhanram or to her mother on returning home. on the next date when Manju informed Rijhanram about the incident, he asked the prosecutrix whereupon the narrate the Incident to Rijhanram and mother Gulabari p.W. 2.

(3.) FIR was lodged on the next date i.e. (17-5-2000 at 6.00 p.m. in Police Station Sitapur by the prosecutrix. She was sent for medical.examination. Dr. Pratibha Jain P.W. ;4 who examined the prosecutrix did not find any mark of violence on her body. No Interrial injury was found. There was an old vaginal tear present. There was no tenderness in the private parts. Vaginal slides were prepared and handed over to the police. The police also seized the petticoat of the prosecutrix on 1.8-5-2000. On being sent for medical examination, the FSL vide report Ex. P.14 did not find any semen or human spermatozoa on the vaginal slides and the petticoat of the prosecutrix. The appellants were examined by Dr. K. K. Dutta P.W. 5 who found them capable pf performing sexual intercourse. After completion of investigation, the appellants were prosecuted for of- fence under Section 376(2)(g).