BALKRISHUN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29/6/2002 delivered by Shri P.N.S. Chouhan, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 357/2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section- 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 7/4/2001 at about 8-00 A.M., Phoolmati PW-1 had gone to the forest to collect Mahua. While returning home, the appellant met her and asked her to stop. On denial, the appellant caught hold of her and forcibly committed rape on her. The prosecutrix returned home and informed about the incident to Banarsi Bai PW-2. The husband of the prosecutrix returned home from village-Lusga on the next day. The F.I.R. Ex.P-1 was lodged by Phoolmati PW-1 on 8/4/2001 in P.S.-Lakhanpur situated about 20 K.m. away from the place of occurrence at 08.15 P.M. On medical examination of the prosecutrix, Dr. Smt. Asha Bansal found that the vaginal examination was painful and mucosa was inflammed. She opined that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. Petticoat of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-9 on 9/4/2001 and was sent for chemical analysis along with vaginal slide proved by Dr. Smt. Asha Bansal PW-6 on 16/5/2001. However, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was not produced before the trial Court. The accused was also sent for medical examination. Dr. Ashok Kumar PW-4 on examining him found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section-376 of IPC. The accused-appellant abjured the guilt. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of its case. The accused-appellant pleaded innocence in defence and examined one Jangli Ram D.W.-1. The trial Court relying upon the testimony of prosecutrix which was duly corroborated by Banarsi Bai PW-2, Mangal PW-3 as also by the F.I.R. Ex P-1 and the medical evidence of Dr. Smt. Asha Bansal PW-6, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in para-1.

(3.) Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated which was clearly borne out from the cross-examination of Para-3 of the Banarsi Bai PW-2. She further contended that no satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was given by the prosecutrix. It was also pointed out that Mangal PW-3, husband of the prosecutrix has avoided to answer any question relating to previous enmity with the appellant which is borne out from Para-3 of the testimony of Banarsi Bai PW-2. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was also not proved by the prosecution.